Discussion:
Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
(too old to reply)
Jane Darnell
2015-02-14 09:49:29 UTC
Permalink
Forwarding here in case anyone has information that could benefit Yana
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
participation of women within Wikimedia projects." <
***@lists.wikimedia.org>


In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an external party to conduct a
survey and the results (translated to English) are here:
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pdf

The study was split into two parts; one on the contributors and one on the
"users", aka readers. Users were 50/50 male female (page 51), contributors
were 88% male, 6% female, and 6% would not say (page 26)

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers?
>
> Thanks,
> Yana
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-14 16:24:56 UTC
Permalink
my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary paradigm), well...

I&#39;d suggest to take into account User:Pundit&#39;s thoughtful considerations,

author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An ethnography
of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15

Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
"According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 percent of all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This figure may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 complete and valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more likely to respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations of gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011) may be distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender in a community perceived as male dominated."

additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also described by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one quoted above) is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist any changes;

and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most rewarding, and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not least quote from them persistently, too...

any rebuttals from stats experts here?

best,
Claudia
***@w4w.net
My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523

---------- Original Message -----------
From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> that could benefit Yana
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> to increase the participation of women within
> Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> external party to conduct a survey and the results
> (translated to English) are here:
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
f
>
> The study was split into two parts; one on the
> contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> would not say (page 26)
>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yana
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
please
> > visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >
------- End of Original Message -------
Gerard Meijssen
2015-02-14 17:42:08 UTC
Permalink
Hoi,
What year are we living ?
Thanks,
GerardM

On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net> wrote:

> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary paradigm),
> well...
>
> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful considerations,
>
> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An ethnography
> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
>
> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 percent of
> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This figure
> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 complete and
> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more likely to
> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations of
> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011) may be
> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender in a
> community perceived as male dominated."
>
> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also described
> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one quoted above)
> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist any
> changes;
>
> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as
> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most rewarding,
> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not least
> quote from them persistently, too...
>
> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
>
> best,
> Claudia
> ***@w4w.net
> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > that could benefit Yana
> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > to increase the participation of women within
> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >
> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > (translated to English) are here:
> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> f
> >
> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > would not say (page 26)
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers?
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Yana
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Gendergap mailing list
> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
> please
> > > visit:
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > >
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
Jeremy Foote
2015-02-15 04:12:41 UTC
Permalink
Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which combined a 2008 WMF survey
with Pew Research to try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited:
Characterizing Survey Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation", and
is at
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002
.

It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to participate in editor
surveys, but it's a step toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
(although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16% of gobal editors
estimated to be female).

Best,
Jeremy

On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com
> wrote:

> Hoi,
> What year are we living ?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>
>> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary paradigm),
>> well...
>>
>> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful considerations,
>>
>> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An ethnography
>> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
>>
>> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
>> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 percent of
>> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This figure
>> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
>> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 complete and
>> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more likely to
>> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations of
>> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011) may be
>> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender in a
>> community perceived as male dominated."
>>
>> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also described
>> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one quoted above)
>> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist any
>> changes;
>>
>> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as
>> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most rewarding,
>> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not least
>> quote from them persistently, too...
>>
>> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
>>
>> best,
>> Claudia
>> ***@w4w.net
>> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>>
>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
>> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>
>> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
>> > that could benefit Yana
>> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
>> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
>> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
>> > to increase the participation of women within
>> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> >
>> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
>> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
>> > (translated to English) are here:
>>
>> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
>> f
>> >
>> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
>> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
>> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
>> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
>> > would not say (page 26)
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
>> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi all,
>> > >
>> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers?
>> > >
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > Yana
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Gendergap mailing list
>> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
>> please
>> > > visit:
>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>> > >
>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-15 10:50:48 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,

hi all,
can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in quantitative
studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for example, and also
changing the framework in which the data were created)

another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of languages,
statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which language
version (community) the data were created in/from.
my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite different from
results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another
differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a differently
gendered status in different communities, etc.

the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of Wikipedia
readers" question that this thread started with,

best,
Claudia
***@w4w.net

---------- Original Message -----------
From:Jeremy Foote <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
> combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
> try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
> gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
> Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
> Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
> and is at
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
>
> It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
> participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
> toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
> (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
> of gobal editors estimated to be female).
>
> Best,
> Jeremy
>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<***@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > What year are we living ?
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >
> >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary paradigm),
> >> well...
> >>
> >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
considerations,
> >>
> >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
ethnography
> >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> >>
> >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 percent
of
> >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This
figure
> >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
> >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 complete
and
> >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more likely to
> >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations of
> >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011)
may be
> >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender in
a
> >> community perceived as male dominated."
> >>
> >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also described
> >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one quoted
above)
> >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist any
> >> changes;
> >>
> >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as
> >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
rewarding,
> >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not
least
> >> quote from them persistently, too...
> >>
> >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> >>
> >> best,
> >> Claudia
> >> ***@w4w.net
> >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> >>
> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> >> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>
> >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> >> > that could benefit Yana
> >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> >> > to increase the participation of women within
> >> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> >
> >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> >> > (translated to English) are here:
> >>
> >>
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> >> f
> >> >
> >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> >> > would not say (page 26)
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> >> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi all,
> >> > >
> >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers?
> >> > >
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > Yana
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Gendergap mailing list
> >> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
unsubscribing,
> >> please
> >> > > visit:
> >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >> > >
> >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
------- End of Original Message -------
Dariusz Jemielniak
2015-02-16 13:58:56 UTC
Permalink
hi there,

thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you that a lot of data we have
is outdated, and that there are way too many generalizations about
Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and Mako pointed out in their
paper (referred to by Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
estimations of gender gap, and the current methods are far from perfect. As
far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
publication coming up?

best,

dariusz

On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:

> Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
>
> hi all,
> can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in quantitative
> studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for example, and
> also
> changing the framework in which the data were created)
>
> another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
> languages,
> statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which language
> version (community) the data were created in/from.
> my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite different
> from
> results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another
> differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a differently
> gendered status in different communities, etc.
>
> the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of Wikipedia
> readers" question that this thread started with,
>
> best,
> Claudia
> ***@w4w.net
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Jeremy Foote <***@gmail.com>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
> > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
> > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
> > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
> > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
> > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
> > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
> > and is at
> > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
> id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
> >
> > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
> > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
> > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
> > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
> > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
> >
> > Best,
> > Jeremy
> >
> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> <***@gmail.com
> > > wrote:
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > What year are we living ?
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary paradigm),
> > >> well...
> > >>
> > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> considerations,
> > >>
> > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
> ethnography
> > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> > >>
> > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 percent
> of
> > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This
> figure
> > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
> > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 complete
> and
> > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
> likely to
> > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations
> of
> > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011)
> may be
> > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender in
> a
> > >> community perceived as male dominated."
> > >>
> > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also described
> > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one quoted
> above)
> > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist any
> > >> changes;
> > >>
> > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as
> > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
> rewarding,
> > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not
> least
> > >> quote from them persistently, too...
> > >>
> > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> > >>
> > >> best,
> > >> Claudia
> > >> ***@w4w.net
> > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > >>
> > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> > >> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > >>
> > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > >> > that could benefit Yana
> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > >> > to increase the participation of women within
> > >> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >> >
> > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > >> > (translated to English) are here:
> > >>
> > >>
> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > >> f
> > >> >
> > >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > >> > would not say (page 26)
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > >> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hi all,
> > >> > >
> > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers?
> > >> > >
> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > > Yana
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > Gendergap mailing list
> > >> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
> unsubscribing,
> > >> please
> > >> > > visit:
> > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > >> > >
> > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> > >
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>



--

__________________________
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-16 14:43:31 UTC
Permalink
hi dariusz,

> the current methods are far from perfect.

in your opinion, in which respect do they need to be improved?

has anyone published on that, or are there any "non-published" links
available?

best,
Claudia
***@w4w.net
Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
- mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard

---------- Original Message -----------
From:Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:58:56 +0100
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> hi there,
>
> thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you
> that a lot of data we have is outdated, and that
> there are way too many generalizations about
> Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and
> Mako pointed out in their paper (referred to by
> Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
> estimations of gender gap, and the current methods
> are far from perfect. As far as I recall, they did
> a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a publication
> coming up?
>
> best,
>
> dariusz
>
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM,
> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
> >
> > hi all,
> > can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
quantitative
> > studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for example, and
> > also
> > changing the framework in which the data were created)
> >
> > another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
> > languages,
> > statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
language
> > version (community) the data were created in/from.
> > my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite different
> > from
> > results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another
> > differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a differently
> > gendered status in different communities, etc.
> >
> > the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
Wikipedia
> > readers" question that this thread started with,
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia
> > ***@w4w.net
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From:Jeremy Foote <***@gmail.com>
> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> > > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
> > > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
> > > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
> > > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
> > > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
> > > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
> > > and is at
> > > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
> > id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
> > >
> > > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
> > > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
> > > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
> > > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
> > > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
> > >
> > > Best,
> > > Jeremy
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> > <***@gmail.com
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > What year are we living ?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
paradigm),
> > > >> well...
> > > >>
> > > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> > considerations,
> > > >>
> > > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
> > ethnography
> > > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> > > >>
> > > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
percent
> > of
> > > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This
> > figure
> > > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
> > > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
complete
> > and
> > > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
> > likely to
> > > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations
> > of
> > > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al.
2011)
> > may be
> > > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their
gender in
> > a
> > > >> community perceived as male dominated."
> > > >>
> > > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
described
> > > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one
quoted
> > above)
> > > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist
any
> > > >> changes;
> > > >>
> > > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived
as
> > > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
> > rewarding,
> > > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and
not
> > least
> > > >> quote from them persistently, too...
> > > >>
> > > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> > > >>
> > > >> best,
> > > >> Claudia
> > > >> ***@w4w.net
> > > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > > >>
> > > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > >> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
> > > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > >>
> > > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > > >> > that could benefit Yana
> > > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > >> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > > >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > > >> > to increase the participation of women within
> > > >> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > >> >
> > > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > > >> > (translated to English) are here:
> > > >>
> > > >>
> >
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > > >> f
> > > >> >
> > > >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > > >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > > >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > > >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > > >> > would not say (page 26)
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > > >> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hi all,
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
readers?
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > Yana
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > > Gendergap mailing list
> > > >> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
> > unsubscribing,
> > > >> please
> > > >> > > visit:
> > > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > > >> > >
> > > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
>
> --
>
> __________________________
> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> i centrum badawczego CROW
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>
> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej
> Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>
> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii
> "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia"
> (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa
> http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>
> Recenzje
> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> Pacific Standard:
> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-
> culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard:
> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-
> wikipedia The Wikipedian:
> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-
> jemielniak-common-knowledge
------- End of Original Message -------
Dariusz Jemielniak
2015-02-16 14:48:36 UTC
Permalink
hi,


On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:

>
> > the current methods are far from perfect.
>
> in your opinion, in which respect do they need to be improved?
>

the thing is, with Internet research we often have to rely on anonymous
declarations. It would be nice to e.g. cross-reference with data from
social networks, but it is not possible to introduce ethically without user
consent, and without the consent the problem of opt-in selective bias is
still real. What we can do (and do) is triangulation of methods.



> has anyone published on that, or are there any "non-published" links
> available?
>

I think the most interesting approach to the problem is covered by Mako and
Aaron:
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782

best,

dj



>
> best,
> Claudia
> ***@w4w.net
> Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> - mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:58:56 +0100
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
> > hi there,
> >
> > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you
> > that a lot of data we have is outdated, and that
> > there are way too many generalizations about
> > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and
> > Mako pointed out in their paper (referred to by
> > Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
> > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods
> > are far from perfect. As far as I recall, they did
> > a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a publication
> > coming up?
> >
> > best,
> >
> > dariusz
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM,
> > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
> > >
> > > hi all,
> > > can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
> quantitative
> > > studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for example,
> and
> > > also
> > > changing the framework in which the data were created)
> > >
> > > another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
> > > languages,
> > > statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
> language
> > > version (community) the data were created in/from.
> > > my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite different
> > > from
> > > results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another
> > > differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a differently
> > > gendered status in different communities, etc.
> > >
> > > the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
> Wikipedia
> > > readers" question that this thread started with,
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Claudia
> > > ***@w4w.net
> > >
> > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > From:Jeremy Foote <***@gmail.com>
> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
> > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > >
> > > > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
> > > > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
> > > > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
> > > > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
> > > > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
> > > > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
> > > > and is at
> > > > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
> > > id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
> > > >
> > > > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
> > > > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
> > > > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
> > > > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
> > > > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
> > > >
> > > > Best,
> > > > Jeremy
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > <***@gmail.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > What year are we living ?
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
> paradigm),
> > > > >> well...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> > > considerations,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
> > > ethnography
> > > > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> > > > >>
> > > > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > > > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
> percent
> > > of
> > > > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011]
> This
> > > figure
> > > > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online
> survey
> > > > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
> complete
> > > and
> > > > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
> > > likely to
> > > > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of
> self-declarations
> > > of
> > > > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al.
> 2011)
> > > may be
> > > > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their
> gender in
> > > a
> > > > >> community perceived as male dominated."
> > > > >>
> > > > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
> described
> > > > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one
> quoted
> > > above)
> > > > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist
> any
> > > > >> changes;
> > > > >>
> > > > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived
> as
> > > > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
> > > rewarding,
> > > > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and
> not
> > > least
> > > > >> quote from them persistently, too...
> > > > >>
> > > > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> > > > >>
> > > > >> best,
> > > > >> Claudia
> > > > >> ***@w4w.net
> > > > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > > >> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
> research-
> > > > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > > > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > > > >> > that could benefit Yana
> > > > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > >> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > > >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > > > >> > to increase the participation of women within
> > > > >> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > > > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > > > >> > (translated to English) are here:
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > > > >> f
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > > > >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > > > >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > > > >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > > > >> > would not say (page 26)
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > > > >> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Hi all,
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
> readers?
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > Yana
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > > >> > > Gendergap mailing list
> > > > >> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
> > > unsubscribing,
> > > > >> please
> > > > >> > > visit:
> > > > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> >
> > --
> >
> > __________________________
> > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> > i centrum badawczego CROW
> > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
> >
> > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej
> > Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
> >
> > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii
> > "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia"
> > (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa
> > http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
> >
> > Recenzje
> > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> > Pacific Standard:
> > http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-
> > culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard:
> > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-
> > wikipedia The Wikipedian:
> > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-
> > jemielniak-common-knowledge
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>



--

__________________________
prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
i centrum badawczego CROW
Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl

członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW

Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010

Recenzje
Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
Pacific Standard:
http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
The Wikipedian:
http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
Aaron Halfaker
2015-02-16 17:44:33 UTC
Permalink
Note that Lam et al. came to the same 16.1% figure through completely
different methods in 2011.
http://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:

> hi,
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> > the current methods are far from perfect.
>>
>> in your opinion, in which respect do they need to be improved?
>>
>
> the thing is, with Internet research we often have to rely on anonymous
> declarations. It would be nice to e.g. cross-reference with data from
> social networks, but it is not possible to introduce ethically without user
> consent, and without the consent the problem of opt-in selective bias is
> still real. What we can do (and do) is triangulation of methods.
>
>
>
>> has anyone published on that, or are there any "non-published" links
>> available?
>>
>
> I think the most interesting approach to the problem is covered by Mako
> and Aaron:
> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782
>
> best,
>
> dj
>
>
>
>>
>> best,
>> Claudia
>> ***@w4w.net
>> Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>> - mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
>>
>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> From:Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>
>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:58:56 +0100
>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>
>> > hi there,
>> >
>> > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you
>> > that a lot of data we have is outdated, and that
>> > there are way too many generalizations about
>> > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and
>> > Mako pointed out in their paper (referred to by
>> > Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
>> > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods
>> > are far from perfect. As far as I recall, they did
>> > a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a publication
>> > coming up?
>> >
>> > best,
>> >
>> > dariusz
>> >
>> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM,
>> > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
>> > >
>> > > hi all,
>> > > can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
>> quantitative
>> > > studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for example,
>> and
>> > > also
>> > > changing the framework in which the data were created)
>> > >
>> > > another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
>> > > languages,
>> > > statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
>> language
>> > > version (community) the data were created in/from.
>> > > my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite
>> different
>> > > from
>> > > results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another
>> > > differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a
>> differently
>> > > gendered status in different communities, etc.
>> > >
>> > > the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
>> Wikipedia
>> > > readers" question that this thread started with,
>> > >
>> > > best,
>> > > Claudia
>> > > ***@w4w.net
>> > >
>> > > ---------- Original Message -----------
>> > > From:Jeremy Foote <***@gmail.com>
>> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
>> > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
>> > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> > >
>> > > > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
>> > > > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
>> > > > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
>> > > > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
>> > > > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
>> > > > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
>> > > > and is at
>> > > > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
>> > > id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
>> > > >
>> > > > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
>> > > > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
>> > > > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
>> > > > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
>> > > > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
>> > > >
>> > > > Best,
>> > > > Jeremy
>> > > >
>> > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>> > > <***@gmail.com
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > > Hoi,
>> > > > > What year are we living ?
>> > > > > Thanks,
>> > > > > GerardM
>> > > > >
>> > > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>> > > > >
>> > > > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
>> paradigm),
>> > > > >> well...
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
>> > > considerations,
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
>> > > ethnography
>> > > > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
>> > > > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
>> percent
>> > > of
>> > > > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011]
>> This
>> > > figure
>> > > > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online
>> survey
>> > > > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
>> complete
>> > > and
>> > > > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
>> > > likely to
>> > > > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of
>> self-declarations
>> > > of
>> > > > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al.
>> 2011)
>> > > may be
>> > > > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their
>> gender in
>> > > a
>> > > > >> community perceived as male dominated."
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
>> described
>> > > > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one
>> quoted
>> > > above)
>> > > > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist
>> any
>> > > > >> changes;
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived
>> as
>> > > > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
>> > > rewarding,
>> > > > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and
>> not
>> > > least
>> > > > >> quote from them persistently, too...
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> best,
>> > > > >> Claudia
>> > > > >> ***@w4w.net
>> > > > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> > > > >> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
>> > > > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
>> research-
>> > > > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> > > > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
>> > > > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
>> > > > >> > that could benefit Yana
>> > > > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > > > >> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
>> > > > >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
>> > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> > > > >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
>> > > > >> > to increase the participation of women within
>> > > > >> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
>> > > > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
>> > > > >> > (translated to English) are here:
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > >
>>
>> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
>> > > > >> f
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
>> > > > >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
>> > > > >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
>> > > > >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
>> > > > >> > would not say (page 26)
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
>> > > > >> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> > > > >> >
>> > > > >> > > Hi all,
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
>> readers?
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > Thanks,
>> > > > >> > > Yana
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > >> > > Gendergap mailing list
>> > > > >> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > > >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
>> > > unsubscribing,
>> > > > >> please
>> > > > >> > > visit:
>> > > > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>> > > > >> > >
>> > > > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >> _______________________________________________
>> > > > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> > > > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >>
>> > > > >
>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>> > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> > > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> > > > >
>> > > > >
>> > > ------- End of Original Message -------
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> > >
>> >
>> > --
>> >
>> > __________________________
>> > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>> > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>> > i centrum badawczego CROW
>> > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>> > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>> >
>> > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej
>> > Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>> >
>> > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii
>> > "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia"
>> > (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa
>> > http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>> >
>> > Recenzje
>> > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
>> > Pacific Standard:
>> > http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-
>> > culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard:
>> > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-
>> > wikipedia The Wikipedian:
>> > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-
>> > jemielniak-common-knowledge
>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> __________________________
> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> i centrum badawczego CROW
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>
> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>
> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>
> Recenzje
> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> Pacific Standard:
> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
> Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
> The Wikipedian:
> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
Maximilian Klein
2015-02-17 18:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Note that looking at article-gender and not editor-gender gives 15.6%
female figure [1], which is similar to the ~16% other in the literature. If
article-gender is a proxy for editor-gender, that is useful because it is
easier to calculate article-gender.

[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03086v1.pdf


Make a great day,
Max Klein “ http://notconfusing.com/

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Halfaker <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Note that Lam et al. came to the same 16.1% figure through completely
> different methods in 2011.
> http://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>
> wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > the current methods are far from perfect.
>>>
>>> in your opinion, in which respect do they need to be improved?
>>>
>>
>> the thing is, with Internet research we often have to rely on anonymous
>> declarations. It would be nice to e.g. cross-reference with data from
>> social networks, but it is not possible to introduce ethically without user
>> consent, and without the consent the problem of opt-in selective bias is
>> still real. What we can do (and do) is triangulation of methods.
>>
>>
>>
>>> has anyone published on that, or are there any "non-published" links
>>> available?
>>>
>>
>> I think the most interesting approach to the problem is covered by Mako
>> and Aaron:
>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782
>>
>> best,
>>
>> dj
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> best,
>>> Claudia
>>> ***@w4w.net
>>> Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>>> - mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
>>>
>>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>> From:Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>
>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:58:56 +0100
>>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
>>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>
>>> > hi there,
>>> >
>>> > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you
>>> > that a lot of data we have is outdated, and that
>>> > there are way too many generalizations about
>>> > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and
>>> > Mako pointed out in their paper (referred to by
>>> > Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
>>> > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods
>>> > are far from perfect. As far as I recall, they did
>>> > a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a publication
>>> > coming up?
>>> >
>>> > best,
>>> >
>>> > dariusz
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM,
>>> > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
>>> > >
>>> > > hi all,
>>> > > can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
>>> quantitative
>>> > > studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for example,
>>> and
>>> > > also
>>> > > changing the framework in which the data were created)
>>> > >
>>> > > another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
>>> > > languages,
>>> > > statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
>>> language
>>> > > version (community) the data were created in/from.
>>> > > my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite
>>> different
>>> > > from
>>> > > results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another
>>> > > differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a
>>> differently
>>> > > gendered status in different communities, etc.
>>> > >
>>> > > the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
>>> Wikipedia
>>> > > readers" question that this thread started with,
>>> > >
>>> > > best,
>>> > > Claudia
>>> > > ***@w4w.net
>>> > >
>>> > > ---------- Original Message -----------
>>> > > From:Jeremy Foote <***@gmail.com>
>>> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>>> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
>>> > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
>>> Fwd:
>>> > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>> > >
>>> > > > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
>>> > > > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
>>> > > > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
>>> > > > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
>>> > > > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
>>> > > > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
>>> > > > and is at
>>> > > > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
>>> > > id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
>>> > > >
>>> > > > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
>>> > > > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
>>> > > > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
>>> > > > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
>>> > > > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Best,
>>> > > > Jeremy
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>>> > > <***@gmail.com
>>> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Hoi,
>>> > > > > What year are we living ?
>>> > > > > Thanks,
>>> > > > > GerardM
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
>>> paradigm),
>>> > > > >> well...
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
>>> > > considerations,
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
>>> > > ethnography
>>> > > > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
>>> > > > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
>>> percent
>>> > > of
>>> > > > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011]
>>> This
>>> > > figure
>>> > > > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online
>>> survey
>>> > > > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
>>> complete
>>> > > and
>>> > > > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
>>> > > likely to
>>> > > > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of
>>> self-declarations
>>> > > of
>>> > > > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al.
>>> 2011)
>>> > > may be
>>> > > > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their
>>> gender in
>>> > > a
>>> > > > >> community perceived as male dominated."
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
>>> described
>>> > > > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one
>>> quoted
>>> > > above)
>>> > > > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist
>>> any
>>> > > > >> changes;
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group
>>> perceived
>>> as
>>> > > > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
>>> > > rewarding,
>>> > > > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and
>>> not
>>> > > least
>>> > > > >> quote from them persistently, too...
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> best,
>>> > > > >> Claudia
>>> > > > >> ***@w4w.net
>>> > > > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>> > > > >> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
>>> > > > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
>>> research-
>>> > > > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> > > > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
>>> > > > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
>>> > > > >> > that could benefit Yana
>>> > > > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> > > > >> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
>>> > > > >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
>>> > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>> > > > >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
>>> > > > >> > to increase the participation of women within
>>> > > > >> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
>>> > > > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
>>> > > > >> > (translated to English) are here:
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > >
>>>
>>> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
>>> > > > >> f
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
>>> > > > >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
>>> > > > >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
>>> > > > >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
>>> > > > >> > would not say (page 26)
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
>>> > > > >> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>> > > > >> >
>>> > > > >> > > Hi all,
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
>>> readers?
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > Thanks,
>>> > > > >> > > Yana
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > >> > > Gendergap mailing list
>>> > > > >> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > > > >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
>>> > > unsubscribing,
>>> > > > >> please
>>> > > > >> > > visit:
>>> > > > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>> > > > >> > >
>>> > > > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >> _______________________________________________
>>> > > > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> > > > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> > > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >
>>> > > ------- End of Original Message -------
>>> > >
>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>> > >
>>> >
>>> > --
>>> >
>>> > __________________________
>>> > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>>> > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>>> > i centrum badawczego CROW
>>> > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>>> > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>> >
>>> > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej
>>> > Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>>> >
>>> > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii
>>> > "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia"
>>> > (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa
>>> > http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>>> >
>>> > Recenzje
>>> > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
>>> > Pacific Standard:
>>> > http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-
>>> > culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard:
>>> > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-
>>> > wikipedia The Wikipedian:
>>> > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-
>>> > jemielniak-common-knowledge
>>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> __________________________
>> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>> i centrum badawczego CROW
>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>
>> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
>> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>>
>> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
>> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
>> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>>
>> Recenzje
>> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
>> Pacific Standard:
>> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
>> Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
>> The Wikipedian:
>> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
Michael Restivo
2015-02-17 18:31:58 UTC
Permalink
Wikipedia Signpost had a discussion of this question, including data on
English Wikipedians' gender by edits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-02-14/News_and_notes

Their graph shows the male:female ratio:
[image: A graph of decreasing bars from females occupying 15% initially to
less than 5% on a logarithmic scale.]

But their plot omits editors who do not disclose their gender. I plotted
these data:
[image: Inline image 2]
Regards,
Michael


On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Maximilian Klein <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Note that looking at article-gender and not editor-gender gives 15.6%
> female figure [1], which is similar to the ~16% other in the literature. If
> article-gender is a proxy for editor-gender, that is useful because it is
> easier to calculate article-gender.
>
> [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03086v1.pdf
>
>
> Make a great day,
> Max Klein “ http://notconfusing.com/
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Halfaker <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Note that Lam et al. came to the same 16.1% figure through completely
>> different methods in 2011.
>> http://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> > the current methods are far from perfect.
>>>>
>>>> in your opinion, in which respect do they need to be improved?
>>>>
>>>
>>> the thing is, with Internet research we often have to rely on anonymous
>>> declarations. It would be nice to e.g. cross-reference with data from
>>> social networks, but it is not possible to introduce ethically without user
>>> consent, and without the consent the problem of opt-in selective bias is
>>> still real. What we can do (and do) is triangulation of methods.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> has anyone published on that, or are there any "non-published" links
>>>> available?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I think the most interesting approach to the problem is covered by Mako
>>> and Aaron:
>>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> dj
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>> Claudia
>>>> ***@w4w.net
>>>> Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>>>> - mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>> From:Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>
>>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>>>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:58:56 +0100
>>>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
>>>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>>
>>>> > hi there,
>>>> >
>>>> > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you
>>>> > that a lot of data we have is outdated, and that
>>>> > there are way too many generalizations about
>>>> > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and
>>>> > Mako pointed out in their paper (referred to by
>>>> > Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
>>>> > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods
>>>> > are far from perfect. As far as I recall, they did
>>>> > a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a publication
>>>> > coming up?
>>>> >
>>>> > best,
>>>> >
>>>> > dariusz
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM,
>>>> > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > hi all,
>>>> > > can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
>>>> quantitative
>>>> > > studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for
>>>> example, and
>>>> > > also
>>>> > > changing the framework in which the data were created)
>>>> > >
>>>> > > another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
>>>> > > languages,
>>>> > > statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
>>>> language
>>>> > > version (community) the data were created in/from.
>>>> > > my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite
>>>> different
>>>> > > from
>>>> > > results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another
>>>> > > differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a
>>>> differently
>>>> > > gendered status in different communities, etc.
>>>> > >
>>>> > > the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
>>>> Wikipedia
>>>> > > readers" question that this thread started with,
>>>> > >
>>>> > > best,
>>>> > > Claudia
>>>> > > ***@w4w.net
>>>> > >
>>>> > > ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>> > > From:Jeremy Foote <***@gmail.com>
>>>> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>>>> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>> > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
>>>> > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
>>>> Fwd:
>>>> > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>> > >
>>>> > > > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
>>>> > > > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
>>>> > > > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
>>>> > > > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
>>>> > > > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
>>>> > > > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
>>>> > > > and is at
>>>> > > > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
>>>> > > id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
>>>> > > > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
>>>> > > > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
>>>> > > > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
>>>> > > > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > Best,
>>>> > > > Jeremy
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>>>> > > <***@gmail.com
>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>> > > >
>>>> > > > > Hoi,
>>>> > > > > What year are we living ?
>>>> > > > > Thanks,
>>>> > > > > GerardM
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
>>>> paradigm),
>>>> > > > >> well...
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
>>>> > > considerations,
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
>>>> > > ethnography
>>>> > > > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
>>>> > > > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
>>>> percent
>>>> > > of
>>>> > > > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011]
>>>> This
>>>> > > figure
>>>> > > > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online
>>>> survey
>>>> > > > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
>>>> complete
>>>> > > and
>>>> > > > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
>>>> > > likely to
>>>> > > > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of
>>>> self-declarations
>>>> > > of
>>>> > > > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al.
>>>> 2011)
>>>> > > may be
>>>> > > > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their
>>>> gender in
>>>> > > a
>>>> > > > >> community perceived as male dominated."
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
>>>> described
>>>> > > > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one
>>>> quoted
>>>> > > above)
>>>> > > > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to
>>>> resist
>>>> any
>>>> > > > >> changes;
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group
>>>> perceived
>>>> as
>>>> > > > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
>>>> > > rewarding,
>>>> > > > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and
>>>> not
>>>> > > least
>>>> > > > >> quote from them persistently, too...
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >> best,
>>>> > > > >> Claudia
>>>> > > > >> ***@w4w.net
>>>> > > > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>> > > > >> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
>>>> > > > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
>>>> research-
>>>> > > > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>> > > > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
>>>> > > > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
>>>> > > > >> > that could benefit Yana
>>>> > > > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> > > > >> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
>>>> > > > >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
>>>> > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>> > > > >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
>>>> > > > >> > to increase the participation of women within
>>>> > > > >> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>> > > > >> >
>>>> > > > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
>>>> > > > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
>>>> > > > >> > (translated to English) are here:
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > >
>>>>
>>>> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
>>>> > > > >> f
>>>> > > > >> >
>>>> > > > >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
>>>> > > > >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
>>>> > > > >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
>>>> > > > >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
>>>> > > > >> > would not say (page 26)
>>>> > > > >> >
>>>> > > > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
>>>> > > > >> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>> > > > >> >
>>>> > > > >> > > Hi all,
>>>> > > > >> > >
>>>> > > > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
>>>> readers?
>>>> > > > >> > >
>>>> > > > >> > > Thanks,
>>>> > > > >> > > Yana
>>>> > > > >> > >
>>>> > > > >> > >
>>>> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > > >> > > Gendergap mailing list
>>>> > > > >> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> > > > >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
>>>> > > unsubscribing,
>>>> > > > >> please
>>>> > > > >> > > visit:
>>>> > > > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>> > > > >> > >
>>>> > > > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >> _______________________________________________
>>>> > > > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> > > > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> > > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >>
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> > > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > > >
>>>> > > ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>> > >
>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>> > >
>>>> >
>>>> > --
>>>> >
>>>> > __________________________
>>>> > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>>>> > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>>>> > i centrum badawczego CROW
>>>> > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>>>> > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>>> >
>>>> > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej
>>>> > Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>>>> >
>>>> > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii
>>>> > "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia"
>>>> > (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa
>>>> > http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>>>> >
>>>> > Recenzje
>>>> > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
>>>> > Pacific Standard:
>>>> > http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-
>>>> > culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard:
>>>> > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-
>>>> > wikipedia The Wikipedian:
>>>> > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-
>>>> > jemielniak-common-knowledge
>>>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> __________________________
>>> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>>> i centrum badawczego CROW
>>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>>
>>> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
>>> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>>>
>>> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
>>> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
>>> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>>>
>>> Recenzje
>>> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
>>> Pacific Standard:
>>> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
>>> Motherboard:
>>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
>>> The Wikipedian:
>>> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
Michael Restivo
2015-02-17 18:36:45 UTC
Permalink
I forgot that this is a text-based listserv. Here are links to the images I
referred to. My apologies.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/English_Wikipedians%27_stated_gender_ratio_by_edits%2C_February_2011.png
http://i.imgur.com/PXSBFa8.png

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Michael Restivo <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Wikipedia Signpost had a discussion of this question, including data on
> English Wikipedians' gender by edits:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-02-14/News_and_notes
>
> Their graph shows the male:female ratio:
> [image: A graph of decreasing bars from females occupying 15% initially to
> less than 5% on a logarithmic scale.]
>
> But their plot omits editors who do not disclose their gender. I plotted
> these data:
> [image: Inline image 2]
> Regards,
> Michael
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Maximilian Klein <***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Note that looking at article-gender and not editor-gender gives 15.6%
>> female figure [1], which is similar to the ~16% other in the literature. If
>> article-gender is a proxy for editor-gender, that is useful because it is
>> easier to calculate article-gender.
>>
>> [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03086v1.pdf
>>
>>
>> Make a great day,
>> Max Klein “ http://notconfusing.com/
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Halfaker <***@gmail.com
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Note that Lam et al. came to the same 16.1% figure through completely
>>> different methods in 2011.
>>> http://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> hi,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> > the current methods are far from perfect.
>>>>>
>>>>> in your opinion, in which respect do they need to be improved?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the thing is, with Internet research we often have to rely on anonymous
>>>> declarations. It would be nice to e.g. cross-reference with data from
>>>> social networks, but it is not possible to introduce ethically without user
>>>> consent, and without the consent the problem of opt-in selective bias is
>>>> still real. What we can do (and do) is triangulation of methods.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> has anyone published on that, or are there any "non-published" links
>>>>> available?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I think the most interesting approach to the problem is covered by Mako
>>>> and Aaron:
>>>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>>
>>>> dj
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> best,
>>>>> Claudia
>>>>> ***@w4w.net
>>>>> Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>>>>> - mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>>> From:Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>
>>>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>>>>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:58:56 +0100
>>>>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
>>>>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>>>
>>>>> > hi there,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you
>>>>> > that a lot of data we have is outdated, and that
>>>>> > there are way too many generalizations about
>>>>> > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and
>>>>> > Mako pointed out in their paper (referred to by
>>>>> > Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
>>>>> > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods
>>>>> > are far from perfect. As far as I recall, they did
>>>>> > a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a publication
>>>>> > coming up?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > best,
>>>>> >
>>>>> > dariusz
>>>>> >
>>>>> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM,
>>>>> > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > hi all,
>>>>> > > can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
>>>>> quantitative
>>>>> > > studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for
>>>>> example, and
>>>>> > > also
>>>>> > > changing the framework in which the data were created)
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
>>>>> > > languages,
>>>>> > > statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
>>>>> language
>>>>> > > version (community) the data were created in/from.
>>>>> > > my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite
>>>>> different
>>>>> > > from
>>>>> > > results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one
>>>>> another
>>>>> > > differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a
>>>>> differently
>>>>> > > gendered status in different communities, etc.
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
>>>>> Wikipedia
>>>>> > > readers" question that this thread started with,
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > best,
>>>>> > > Claudia
>>>>> > > ***@w4w.net
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>>> > > From:Jeremy Foote <***@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>>>>> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>> > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
>>>>> > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
>>>>> Fwd:
>>>>> > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
>>>>> > > > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
>>>>> > > > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
>>>>> > > > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
>>>>> > > > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
>>>>> > > > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
>>>>> > > > and is at
>>>>> > > > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
>>>>> > > id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
>>>>> > > > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
>>>>> > > > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
>>>>> > > > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
>>>>> > > > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > Best,
>>>>> > > > Jeremy
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>>>>> > > <***@gmail.com
>>>>> > > > > wrote:
>>>>> > > >
>>>>> > > > > Hoi,
>>>>> > > > > What year are we living ?
>>>>> > > > > Thanks,
>>>>> > > > > GerardM
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
>>>>> paradigm),
>>>>> > > > >> well...
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
>>>>> > > considerations,
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
>>>>> > > ethnography
>>>>> > > > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
>>>>> > > > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
>>>>> percent
>>>>> > > of
>>>>> > > > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of
>>>>> 2011] This
>>>>> > > figure
>>>>> > > > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online
>>>>> survey
>>>>> > > > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
>>>>> complete
>>>>> > > and
>>>>> > > > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are
>>>>> more
>>>>> > > likely to
>>>>> > > > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of
>>>>> self-declarations
>>>>> > > of
>>>>> > > > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al.
>>>>> 2011)
>>>>> > > may be
>>>>> > > > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their
>>>>> gender in
>>>>> > > a
>>>>> > > > >> community perceived as male dominated."
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
>>>>> described
>>>>> > > > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one
>>>>> quoted
>>>>> > > above)
>>>>> > > > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to
>>>>> resist
>>>>> any
>>>>> > > > >> changes;
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group
>>>>> perceived
>>>>> as
>>>>> > > > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes
>>>>> most
>>>>> > > rewarding,
>>>>> > > > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and
>>>>> not
>>>>> > > least
>>>>> > > > >> quote from them persistently, too...
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >> best,
>>>>> > > > >> Claudia
>>>>> > > > >> ***@w4w.net
>>>>> > > > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>>> > > > >> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
>>>>> research-
>>>>> > > > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>> > > > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
>>>>> > > > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
>>>>> > > > >> > that could benefit Yana
>>>>> > > > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> > > > >> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
>>>>> > > > >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
>>>>> > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>>> > > > >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
>>>>> > > > >> > to increase the participation of women within
>>>>> > > > >> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>> > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
>>>>> > > > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
>>>>> > > > >> > (translated to English) are here:
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > >
>>>>>
>>>>> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
>>>>> > > > >> f
>>>>> > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
>>>>> > > > >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
>>>>> > > > >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
>>>>> > > > >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
>>>>> > > > >> > would not say (page 26)
>>>>> > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
>>>>> > > > >> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>>> > > > >> >
>>>>> > > > >> > > Hi all,
>>>>> > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
>>>>> readers?
>>>>> > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > >> > > Thanks,
>>>>> > > > >> > > Yana
>>>>> > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > > >> > > Gendergap mailing list
>>>>> > > > >> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> > > > >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
>>>>> > > unsubscribing,
>>>>> > > > >> please
>>>>> > > > >> > > visit:
>>>>> > > > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>>> > > > >> > >
>>>>> > > > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> > > > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> > > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >>
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> > > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > > >
>>>>> > > ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>>> > >
>>>>> > > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>> > >
>>>>> >
>>>>> > --
>>>>> >
>>>>> > __________________________
>>>>> > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>>>>> > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>>>>> > i centrum badawczego CROW
>>>>> > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>>>>> > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>>>> >
>>>>> > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej
>>>>> > Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii
>>>>> > "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia"
>>>>> > (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa
>>>>> > http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>>>>> >
>>>>> > Recenzje
>>>>> > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
>>>>> > Pacific Standard:
>>>>> > http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-
>>>>> > culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard:
>>>>> > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-
>>>>> > wikipedia The Wikipedian:
>>>>> > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-
>>>>> > jemielniak-common-knowledge
>>>>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> __________________________
>>>> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
>>>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
>>>> i centrum badawczego CROW
>>>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
>>>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>>>>
>>>> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
>>>> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>>>>
>>>> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
>>>> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
>>>> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>>>>
>>>> Recenzje
>>>> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
>>>> Pacific Standard:
>>>> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
>>>> Motherboard:
>>>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
>>>> The Wikipedian:
>>>> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-17 20:02:42 UTC
Permalink
... so what if IRL many more female* editors start articles on trans*, inter*,
non-genderidentified* and male* people than male* editors start articles on
female*, trans*, inter* and non-genderidentified* people?

best,
Claudia

---------- Original Message -----------
From:Maximilian Klein <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:09:38 -0800
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Note that looking at article-gender and not editor-
> gender gives 15.6% female figure [1], which is
> similar to the ~16% other in the literature. If
> article-gender is a proxy for editor-gender, that
> is useful because it is easier to calculate
> article-gender.
>
> [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03086v1.pdf
>
> Make a great day,
> Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Halfaker
<***@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Note that Lam et al. came to the same 16.1% figure through completely
> > different methods in 2011.
> > http://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak
<***@alk.edu.pl>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> > the current methods are far from perfect.
> >>>
> >>> in your opinion, in which respect do they need to be improved?
> >>>
> >>
> >> the thing is, with Internet research we often have to rely on anonymous
> >> declarations. It would be nice to e.g. cross-reference with data from
> >> social networks, but it is not possible to introduce ethically without
user
> >> consent, and without the consent the problem of opt-in selective bias is
> >> still real. What we can do (and do) is triangulation of methods.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> has anyone published on that, or are there any "non-published" links
> >>> available?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think the most interesting approach to the problem is covered by
Mako
> >> and Aaron:
> >> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> dj
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> best,
> >>> Claudia
> >>> ***@w4w.net
> >>> Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> >>> - mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Original Message -----------
> >>> From:Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>
> >>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
> >>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:58:56 +0100
> >>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
Fwd:
> >>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>>
> >>> > hi there,
> >>> >
> >>> > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you
> >>> > that a lot of data we have is outdated, and that
> >>> > there are way too many generalizations about
> >>> > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and
> >>> > Mako pointed out in their paper (referred to by
> >>> > Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
> >>> > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods
> >>> > are far from perfect. As far as I recall, they did
> >>> > a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a publication
> >>> > coming up?
> >>> >
> >>> > best,
> >>> >
> >>> > dariusz
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM,
> >>> > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > hi all,
> >>> > > can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
> >>> quantitative
> >>> > > studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for
example,
> >>> and
> >>> > > also
> >>> > > changing the framework in which the data were created)
> >>> > >
> >>> > > another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host
of
> >>> > > languages,
> >>> > > statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
> >>> language
> >>> > > version (community) the data were created in/from.
> >>> > > my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite
> >>> different
> >>> > > from
> >>> > > results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one
another
> >>> > > differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a
> >>> differently
> >>> > > gendered status in different communities, etc.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
> >>> Wikipedia
> >>> > > readers" question that this thread started with,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > best,
> >>> > > Claudia
> >>> > > ***@w4w.net
> >>> > >
> >>> > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> >>> > > From:Jeremy Foote <***@gmail.com>
> >>> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
> >>> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>> > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
> >>> > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
> >>> Fwd:
> >>> > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
> >>> > > > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
> >>> > > > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
> >>> > > > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
> >>> > > > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
> >>> > > > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
> >>> > > > and is at
> >>> > > > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
> >>> > > id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
> >>> > > > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
> >>> > > > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
> >>> > > > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
> >>> > > > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > Best,
> >>> > > > Jeremy
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> >>> > > <***@gmail.com
> >>> > > > > wrote:
> >>> > > >
> >>> > > > > Hoi,
> >>> > > > > What year are we living ?
> >>> > > > > Thanks,
> >>> > > > > GerardM
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net>
wrote:
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
> >>> paradigm),
> >>> > > > >> well...
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> >>> > > considerations,
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common
knowledge? An
> >>> > > ethnography
> >>> > > > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> >>> > > > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011,
91
> >>> percent
> >>> > > of
> >>> > > > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of
2011]
> >>> This
> >>> > > figure
> >>> > > > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online
> >>> survey
> >>> > > > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on
5,073
> >>> complete
> >>> > > and
> >>> > > > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are
more
> >>> > > likely to
> >>> > > > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of
> >>> self-declarations
> >>> > > of
> >>> > > > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et
al.
> >>> 2011)
> >>> > > may be
> >>> > > > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal
their
> >>> gender in
> >>> > > a
> >>> > > > >> community perceived as male dominated."
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
> >>> described
> >>> > > > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the
one
> >>> quoted
> >>> > > above)
> >>> > > > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to
resist
> >>> any
> >>> > > > >> changes;
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group
> >>> perceived
> >>> as
> >>> > > > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced
outcomes most
> >>> > > rewarding,
> >>> > > > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as
possible and
> >>> not
> >>> > > least
> >>> > > > >> quote from them persistently, too...
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> best,
> >>> > > > >> Claudia
> >>> > > > >> ***@w4w.net
> >>> > > > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> >>> > > > >> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> >>> > > > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-
> >>> research-
> >>> > > > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>> > > > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> >>> > > > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia
readers
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> >>> > > > >> > that could benefit Yana
> >>> > > > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >>> > > > >> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> >>> > > > >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> >>> > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>> > > > >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> >>> > > > >> > to increase the participation of women within
> >>> > > > >> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> >>> > > > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> >>> > > > >> > (translated to English) are here:
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > >
> >>>
> >>>
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> >>> > > > >> f
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> >>> > > > >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> >>> > > > >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> >>> > > > >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> >>> > > > >> > would not say (page 26)
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> >>> > > > >> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >>> > > > >> >
> >>> > > > >> > > Hi all,
> >>> > > > >> > >
> >>> > > > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of
Wikipedia
> >>> readers?
> >>> > > > >> > >
> >>> > > > >> > > Thanks,
> >>> > > > >> > > Yana
> >>> > > > >> > >
> >>> > > > >> > >
> >>> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> >>> > > > >> > > Gendergap mailing list
> >>> > > > >> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> > > > >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
> >>> > > unsubscribing,
> >>> > > > >> please
> >>> > > > >> > > visit:
> >>> > > > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >>> > > > >> > >
> >>> > > > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> >>> > > > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>> > > > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> > > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >>
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > > _______________________________________________
> >>> > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>> > > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > > >
> >>> > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>> > >
> >>> > > _______________________________________________
> >>> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>> > >
> >>> >
> >>> > --
> >>> >
> >>> > __________________________
> >>> > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> >>> > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> >>> > i centrum badawczego CROW
> >>> > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> >>> > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
> >>> >
> >>> > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej
> >>> > Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
> >>> >
> >>> > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii
> >>> > "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia"
> >>> > (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa
> >>> > http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
> >>> >
> >>> > Recenzje
> >>> > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> >>> > Pacific Standard:
> >>> > http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-
> >>> > culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard:
> >>> > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-
> >>> > wikipedia The Wikipedian:
> >>> > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-
> >>> > jemielniak-common-knowledge
> >>> ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> __________________________
> >> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> >> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> >> i centrum badawczego CROW
> >> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> >> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
> >>
> >> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> >> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
> >>
> >> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge?
An
> >> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> >> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
> >>
> >> Recenzje
> >> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> >> Pacific Standard:
> >> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-
93777/
> >> Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-
wikipedia
> >> The Wikipedian:
> >> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-
knowledge
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
------- End of Original Message -------
Sydney Poore
2015-02-16 15:49:05 UTC
Permalink
Hello Dariusz and everyone else,

I'm interested in sharing ideas about the best way to discuss the gender
gap in the wikimedia movement.

While more information is always useful and at times necessary in order to
measure change properly, if the previous data seems to still match the day
to day observations pretty well then discounting the previous data as wrong
just because it is outdated doesn't seem sensible.

Since I've had the opportunity to observe the gender of wikimedia
affiliated groups (both official and informal) from around the world, I can
say with confidence that the wikimedia movement is still dominated by
males. Both on and off line, except for diversity related events, I'm often
the only women participating in discussions and rarely does the ratio
exceed 3 in 10.

To have my observation better documented would be great :-) I hope that
more wikimedia organizations document the gender mix of content creators
who are affiliated with their organization so that better research can be
done.

I encourage everyone to look at the up coming WMF Inspire Gender Gap grant
campaign and see if they can find an opportunity to work on better data
collection during this high profile campaign.

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire_Grants_%E2%80%93_Gender_gap_campaign

Sydney

Sydney Poore
User:FloNight
Wikipedian in Residence
at Cochrane Collaboration

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:

> hi there,
>
> thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you that a lot of data we
> have is outdated, and that there are way too many generalizations about
> Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and Mako pointed out in their
> paper (referred to by Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
> estimations of gender gap, and the current methods are far from perfect. As
> far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> publication coming up?
>
> best,
>
> dariusz
>
> On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
>>
>> hi all,
>> can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in quantitative
>> studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for example, and
>> also
>> changing the framework in which the data were created)
>>
>> another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
>> languages,
>> statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which language
>> version (community) the data were created in/from.
>> my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite different
>> from
>> results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another
>> differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a differently
>> gendered status in different communities, etc.
>>
>> the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of Wikipedia
>> readers" question that this thread started with,
>>
>> best,
>> Claudia
>> ***@w4w.net
>>
>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> From:Jeremy Foote <***@gmail.com>
>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>
>> > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
>> > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
>> > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
>> > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
>> > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
>> > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
>> > and is at
>> > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
>> id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
>> >
>> > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
>> > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
>> > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
>> > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
>> > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Jeremy
>> >
>> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>> <***@gmail.com
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hoi,
>> > > What year are we living ?
>> > > Thanks,
>> > > GerardM
>> > >
>> > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
>> paradigm),
>> > >> well...
>> > >>
>> > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
>> considerations,
>> > >>
>> > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
>> ethnography
>> > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
>> > >>
>> > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
>> > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 percent
>> of
>> > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This
>> figure
>> > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
>> > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 complete
>> and
>> > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
>> likely to
>> > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations
>> of
>> > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011)
>> may be
>> > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender
>> in
>> a
>> > >> community perceived as male dominated."
>> > >>
>> > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
>> described
>> > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one quoted
>> above)
>> > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist any
>> > >> changes;
>> > >>
>> > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as
>> > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
>> rewarding,
>> > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not
>> least
>> > >> quote from them persistently, too...
>> > >>
>> > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
>> > >>
>> > >> best,
>> > >> Claudia
>> > >> ***@w4w.net
>> > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>> > >>
>> > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> > >> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
>> > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>> > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
>> > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> > >>
>> > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
>> > >> > that could benefit Yana
>> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> > >> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
>> > >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
>> > >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> > >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
>> > >> > to increase the participation of women within
>> > >> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> > >> >
>> > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
>> > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
>> > >> > (translated to English) are here:
>> > >>
>> > >>
>>
>> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
>> > >> f
>> > >> >
>> > >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
>> > >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
>> > >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
>> > >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
>> > >> > would not say (page 26)
>> > >> >
>> > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
>> > >> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> > >> >
>> > >> > > Hi all,
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers?
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > Thanks,
>> > >> > > Yana
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > >
>> > >> > > _______________________________________________
>> > >> > > Gendergap mailing list
>> > >> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
>> unsubscribing,
>> > >> please
>> > >> > > visit:
>> > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>> > >> > >
>> > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
>> > >>
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> > >
>> > >
>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
>
> --
>
> __________________________
> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> i centrum badawczego CROW
> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
>
> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
>
> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An
> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
>
> Recenzje
> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> Pacific Standard:
> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/
> Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia
> The Wikipedian:
> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-16 17:21:43 UTC
Permalink
Hi Sidney and everyone else,

it seems to me that this list might be turned into a research ideas
switchboard, here's some of my thoughts

my impression is that counting just two genders is outdated, and maybe
calling a phenomenon a "gender gap" might therefore no longer be suitable,
either,
anyone have any ideas for a solution here?

we might be looking into the dynamics of power games from a slightly
different angle,
maybe someone could do some in-depth interviews with Wikimedians
officially identifying as male who are willing to reflect on wm-related
situations where they would possibly have felt better off as non-males

actually, this idea just emerged from the back of my head, where I found a
previous thought experiment (from a Miscellany_for_deletion discussion on
enWP) still lingering a bit, which started in this way:

* meta: in-principle debates usually show how rules are made to work (and
kept up) that have been defined by a majority of people. Now let's do a small
thought experiment: Imagine that the [...] page is a lovely place to contribute
to. Then imagine that any other page you in principle wish to contribute to is
actually a place you do not wish to be on because the climate among users is
unbearable to you. Next step: Please phrase the implicit rules that keep me
off that page and make them explicit here. Let's see what everyone might
come up with. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

:WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK comes to mind. [...] 17:39, 2 February 2015
(UTC)

::Well then, given the thought experiment setting, why does just this one
come to your mind, [...]? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

:::The section please introduce yourself is a forum for discussion not related
to building an encylopedia. It's social in nature with some ambiguous goals. I
think frankly it is an attempt to set up her own quasi GGTF since her
compatriots were banned. [...] 16:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

::::Thanks, and as for compatriots, next step in the thought experiment, [...],
is precisely to now address that other, disagreeable, space and "phrase the
implicit rules that keep me off that page", any ideas as to how compatriotism
might express itself over there? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 08:40, 5 February
2015 (UTC)

---

any thoughts are welcome

best,
Claudia
***@w4w.net
GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523

---------- Original Message -----------
From:Sydney Poore <***@gmail.com>
To:Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>, Research into Wikimedia content
and communities <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:49:05 -0500
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hello Dariusz and everyone else,
>
> I'm interested in sharing ideas about the best way
> to discuss the gender gap in the wikimedia movement.
>
> While more information is always useful and at
> times necessary in order to measure change
> properly, if the previous data seems to still
> match the day to day observations pretty well then
> discounting the previous data as wrong just
> because it is outdated doesn't seem sensible.
>
> Since I've had the opportunity to observe the
> gender of wikimedia affiliated groups (both
> official and informal) from around the world, I
> can say with confidence that the wikimedia
> movement is still dominated by males. Both on and
> off line, except for diversity related events, I'm
> often the only women participating in discussions
> and rarely does the ratio exceed 3 in 10.
>
> To have my observation better documented would be
> great :-) I hope that more wikimedia organizations
> document the gender mix of content creators who
> are affiliated with their organization so that
> better research can be done.
>
> I encourage everyone to look at the up coming WMF
> Inspire Gender Gap grant campaign and see if they
> can find an opportunity to work on better data
> collection during this high profile campaign.
>
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire_Grants_%E2%80%93
_Gender_gap_campaign
>
> Sydney
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Wikipedian in Residence
> at Cochrane Collaboration
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Dariusz
> Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
>
> > hi there,
> >
> > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you that a lot of data we
> > have is outdated, and that there are way too many generalizations about
> > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and Mako pointed out in
their
> > paper (referred to by Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
> > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods are far from perfect.
As
> > far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> > publication coming up?
> >
> > best,
> >
> > dariusz
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
> >>
> >> hi all,
> >> can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
quantitative
> >> studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for example,
and
> >> also
> >> changing the framework in which the data were created)
> >>
> >> another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
> >> languages,
> >> statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
language
> >> version (community) the data were created in/from.
> >> my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite different
> >> from
> >> results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another
> >> differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a differently
> >> gendered status in different communities, etc.
> >>
> >> the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
Wikipedia
> >> readers" question that this thread started with,
> >>
> >> best,
> >> Claudia
> >> ***@w4w.net
> >>
> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> >> From:Jeremy Foote <***@gmail.com>
> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> >> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>
> >> > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
> >> > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
> >> > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
> >> > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
> >> > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
> >> > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
> >> > and is at
> >> > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
> >> id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
> >> >
> >> > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
> >> > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
> >> > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
> >> > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
> >> > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
> >> >
> >> > Best,
> >> > Jeremy
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> >> <***@gmail.com
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hoi,
> >> > > What year are we living ?
> >> > > Thanks,
> >> > > GerardM
> >> > >
> >> > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
> >> paradigm),
> >> > >> well...
> >> > >>
> >> > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> >> considerations,
> >> > >>
> >> > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
> >> ethnography
> >> > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> >> > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
percent
> >> of
> >> > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011]
This
> >> figure
> >> > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online
survey
> >> > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
complete
> >> and
> >> > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
> >> likely to
> >> > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-
declarations
> >> of
> >> > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al.
2011)
> >> may be
> >> > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their
gender
> >> in
> >> a
> >> > >> community perceived as male dominated."
> >> > >>
> >> > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
> >> described
> >> > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one
quoted
> >> above)
> >> > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist
any
> >> > >> changes;
> >> > >>
> >> > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived
as
> >> > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
> >> rewarding,
> >> > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and
not
> >> least
> >> > >> quote from them persistently, too...
> >> > >>
> >> > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> best,
> >> > >> Claudia
> >> > >> ***@w4w.net
> >> > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> >> > >> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> >> > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
> >> > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> >> > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> >> > >> > that could benefit Yana
> >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> >> > >> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> >> > >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> >> > >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >> > >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> >> > >> > to increase the participation of women within
> >> > >> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> >> > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> >> > >> > (translated to English) are here:
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >>
> >>
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> >> > >> f
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> >> > >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> >> > >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> >> > >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> >> > >> > would not say (page 26)
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> >> > >> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > Hi all,
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
readers?
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Thanks,
> >> > >> > > Yana
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > >> > > Gendergap mailing list
> >> > >> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
> >> unsubscribing,
> >> > >> please
> >> > >> > > visit:
> >> > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> >> > >>
> >> > >> _______________________________________________
> >> > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > __________________________
> > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> > i centrum badawczego CROW
> > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
> >
> > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
> >
> > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge?
An
> > Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
> >
> > Recenzje
> > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> > Pacific Standard:
> > http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-
93777/
> > Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-
wikipedia
> > The Wikipedian:
> > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-
knowledge
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
------- End of Original Message -------
Bryce Peake
2015-02-16 17:33:38 UTC
Permalink
Hello all,

I agree with Claudia's point - counting two genders is pretty outdated when
you look at all of the literature on gender AND sex as more fluid
(scientifically speaking) than binaries do justice. This also makes me
agree that the "gender gap" is a bad way to continue bashing our heads over
this problem. What we want, methinks (please disagree), is an encyclopedia
where people from any point on the gender/sex spectrum feel welcome to
contribute, and where we have a space welcoming of -- and not hostile
towards -- diverse forms of information. That would suggest to me that the
ontological/count 'em all there approach to "how many editors of
operationalized genders" is not confronting the actual problem (since some
people just don't like to edit Wikipedia).

Just an idea, then, to parallel Claudia's: we probably want a type of
experimental design, where we can follow people from all across the
gender/sex spectrum as they encounter, engage, and edit Wikipedia. Using
those experiences, then, we can start to build *SOCIO*technical
responses/mechanisms to mitigate the hostilities people experience based on
gendered social dynamics (all without reducing people to poorly
operationalized gender/sex binaries).

That's not to say I don't enjoy massive surveys, just that they seem ill
suited for the actual research problem.

Bryce

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:21 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:

> Hi Sidney and everyone else,
>
> it seems to me that this list might be turned into a research ideas
> switchboard, here's some of my thoughts
>
> my impression is that counting just two genders is outdated, and maybe
> calling a phenomenon a "gender gap" might therefore no longer be suitable,
> either,
> anyone have any ideas for a solution here?
>
> we might be looking into the dynamics of power games from a slightly
> different angle,
> maybe someone could do some in-depth interviews with Wikimedians
> officially identifying as male who are willing to reflect on wm-related
> situations where they would possibly have felt better off as non-males
>
> actually, this idea just emerged from the back of my head, where I found a
> previous thought experiment (from a Miscellany_for_deletion discussion on
> enWP) still lingering a bit, which started in this way:
>
> * meta: in-principle debates usually show how rules are made to work (and
> kept up) that have been defined by a majority of people. Now let's do a
> small
> thought experiment: Imagine that the [...] page is a lovely place to
> contribute
> to. Then imagine that any other page you in principle wish to contribute
> to is
> actually a place you do not wish to be on because the climate among users
> is
> unbearable to you. Next step: Please phrase the implicit rules that keep me
> off that page and make them explicit here. Let's see what everyone might
> come up with. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
>
> :WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK comes to mind. [...] 17:39, 2 February 2015
> (UTC)
>
> ::Well then, given the thought experiment setting, why does just this one
> come to your mind, [...]? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2015
> (UTC)
>
> :::The section please introduce yourself is a forum for discussion not
> related
> to building an encylopedia. It's social in nature with some ambiguous
> goals. I
> think frankly it is an attempt to set up her own quasi GGTF since her
> compatriots were banned. [...] 16:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
>
> ::::Thanks, and as for compatriots, next step in the thought experiment,
> [...],
> is precisely to now address that other, disagreeable, space and "phrase the
> implicit rules that keep me off that page", any ideas as to how
> compatriotism
> might express itself over there? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 08:40, 5 February
> 2015 (UTC)
>
> ---
>
> any thoughts are welcome
>
> best,
> Claudia
> ***@w4w.net
> GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Sydney Poore <***@gmail.com>
> To:Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>, Research into Wikimedia content
> and communities <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:49:05 -0500
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
> > Hello Dariusz and everyone else,
> >
> > I'm interested in sharing ideas about the best way
> > to discuss the gender gap in the wikimedia movement.
> >
> > While more information is always useful and at
> > times necessary in order to measure change
> > properly, if the previous data seems to still
> > match the day to day observations pretty well then
> > discounting the previous data as wrong just
> > because it is outdated doesn't seem sensible.
> >
> > Since I've had the opportunity to observe the
> > gender of wikimedia affiliated groups (both
> > official and informal) from around the world, I
> > can say with confidence that the wikimedia
> > movement is still dominated by males. Both on and
> > off line, except for diversity related events, I'm
> > often the only women participating in discussions
> > and rarely does the ratio exceed 3 in 10.
> >
> > To have my observation better documented would be
> > great :-) I hope that more wikimedia organizations
> > document the gender mix of content creators who
> > are affiliated with their organization so that
> > better research can be done.
> >
> > I encourage everyone to look at the up coming WMF
> > Inspire Gender Gap grant campaign and see if they
> > can find an opportunity to work on better data
> > collection during this high profile campaign.
> >
> >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire_Grants_%E2%80%93
> _Gender_gap_campaign
> >
> > Sydney
> >
> > Sydney Poore
> > User:FloNight
> > Wikipedian in Residence
> > at Cochrane Collaboration
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Dariusz
> > Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> >
> > > hi there,
> > >
> > > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you that a lot of data we
> > > have is outdated, and that there are way too many generalizations about
> > > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and Mako pointed out in
> their
> > > paper (referred to by Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
> > > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods are far from
> perfect.
> As
> > > far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> > > publication coming up?
> > >
> > > best,
> > >
> > > dariusz
> > >
> > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
> > >>
> > >> hi all,
> > >> can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
> quantitative
> > >> studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for example,
> and
> > >> also
> > >> changing the framework in which the data were created)
> > >>
> > >> another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
> > >> languages,
> > >> statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
> language
> > >> version (community) the data were created in/from.
> > >> my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite
> different
> > >> from
> > >> results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another
> > >> differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a
> differently
> > >> gendered status in different communities, etc.
> > >>
> > >> the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
> Wikipedia
> > >> readers" question that this thread started with,
> > >>
> > >> best,
> > >> Claudia
> > >> ***@w4w.net
> > >>
> > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> > >> From:Jeremy Foote <***@gmail.com>
> > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
> > >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > >> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > >>
> > >> > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
> > >> > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
> > >> > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
> > >> > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
> > >> > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
> > >> > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
> > >> > and is at
> > >> > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
> > >> id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
> > >> >
> > >> > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
> > >> > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
> > >> > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
> > >> > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
> > >> > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
> > >> >
> > >> > Best,
> > >> > Jeremy
> > >> >
> > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> > >> <***@gmail.com
> > >> > > wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> > > Hoi,
> > >> > > What year are we living ?
> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > > GerardM
> > >> > >
> > >> > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > >> > >
> > >> > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
> > >> paradigm),
> > >> > >> well...
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> > >> considerations,
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
> > >> ethnography
> > >> > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > >> > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
> percent
> > >> of
> > >> > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011]
> This
> > >> figure
> > >> > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online
> survey
> > >> > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
> complete
> > >> and
> > >> > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
> > >> likely to
> > >> > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-
> declarations
> > >> of
> > >> > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al.
> 2011)
> > >> may be
> > >> > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their
> gender
> > >> in
> > >> a
> > >> > >> community perceived as male dominated."
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
> > >> described
> > >> > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one
> quoted
> > >> above)
> > >> > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist
> any
> > >> > >> changes;
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived
> as
> > >> > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
> > >> rewarding,
> > >> > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and
> not
> > >> least
> > >> > >> quote from them persistently, too...
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> best,
> > >> > >> Claudia
> > >> > >> ***@w4w.net
> > >> > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> > >> > >> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > >> > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
> research-
> > >> > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >> > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > >> > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > >> > >> > that could benefit Yana
> > >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > >> > >> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > >> > >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > >> > >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > >> > >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > >> > >> > to increase the participation of women within
> > >> > >> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > >> > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > >> > >> > (translated to English) are here:
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > >> > >> f
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > >> > >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > >> > >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > >> > >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > >> > >> > would not say (page 26)
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > >> > >> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >> > >> >
> > >> > >> > > Hi all,
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
> readers?
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > >> > >> > > Yana
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > >> > > Gendergap mailing list
> > >> > >> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
> > >> unsubscribing,
> > >> > >> please
> > >> > >> > > visit:
> > >> > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > >> > >> > >
> > >> > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > >> > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >>
> > >> > >
> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > >> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > >> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >> > >
> > >> > >
> > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> > >>
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > >
> > > __________________________
> > > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> > > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> > > i centrum badawczego CROW
> > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> > > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
> > >
> > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> > > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
> > >
> > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge?
> An
> > > Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> > > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
> > >
> > > Recenzje
> > > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> > > Pacific Standard:
> > > http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-
> 93777/
> > > Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-
> wikipedia
> > > The Wikipedian:
> > > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-
> knowledge
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> > >
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-16 17:39:55 UTC
Permalink
Hi Bryce, interesting thoughts,

can you quickly explain to me what you mean by "forms of information"?

best,
Claudia
***@w4w.net
GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523

---------- Original Message -----------
From:Bryce Peake <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:33:38 -0800
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on gender
stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hello all,
>
> I agree with Claudia's point - counting two
> genders is pretty outdated when you look at all of
> the literature on gender AND sex as more fluid
> (scientifically speaking) than binaries do
> justice. This also makes me agree that the "gender
> gap" is a bad way to continue bashing our heads
> over this problem. What we want, methinks (please
> disagree), is an encyclopedia where people from
> any point on the gender/sex spectrum feel welcome
> to contribute, and where we have a space welcoming
> of -- and not hostile towards -- diverse forms of
> information. That would suggest to me that the
> ontological/count 'em all there approach to "how
> many editors of operationalized genders" is not
> confronting the actual problem (since some people
> just don't like to edit Wikipedia).
>
> Just an idea, then, to parallel Claudia's: we
> probably want a type of experimental design, where
> we can follow people from all across the
> gender/sex spectrum as they encounter, engage, and
> edit Wikipedia. Using those experiences, then, we
> can start to build *SOCIO*technical
> responses/mechanisms to mitigate the hostilities
> people experience based on gendered social
> dynamics (all without reducing people to poorly
> operationalized gender/sex binaries).
>
> That's not to say I don't enjoy massive surveys,
> just that they seem ill suited for the actual
> research problem.
>
> Bryce
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:21 AM,
> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Sidney and everyone else,
> >
> > it seems to me that this list might be turned into a research ideas
> > switchboard, here's some of my thoughts
> >
> > my impression is that counting just two genders is outdated, and maybe
> > calling a phenomenon a "gender gap" might therefore no longer be
suitable,
> > either,
> > anyone have any ideas for a solution here?
> >
> > we might be looking into the dynamics of power games from a slightly
> > different angle,
> > maybe someone could do some in-depth interviews with Wikimedians
> > officially identifying as male who are willing to reflect on wm-related
> > situations where they would possibly have felt better off as non-males
> >
> > actually, this idea just emerged from the back of my head, where I found
a
> > previous thought experiment (from a Miscellany_for_deletion discussion
on
> > enWP) still lingering a bit, which started in this way:
> >
> > * meta: in-principle debates usually show how rules are made to work
(and
> > kept up) that have been defined by a majority of people. Now let's do a
> > small
> > thought experiment: Imagine that the [...] page is a lovely place to
> > contribute
> > to. Then imagine that any other page you in principle wish to contribute
> > to is
> > actually a place you do not wish to be on because the climate among
users
> > is
> > unbearable to you. Next step: Please phrase the implicit rules that keep
me
> > off that page and make them explicit here. Let's see what everyone
might
> > come up with. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
> >
> > :WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK comes to mind. [...] 17:39, 2 February 2015
> > (UTC)
> >
> > ::Well then, given the thought experiment setting, why does just this
one
> > come to your mind, [...]? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2015
> > (UTC)
> >
> > :::The section please introduce yourself is a forum for discussion not
> > related
> > to building an encylopedia. It's social in nature with some ambiguous
> > goals. I
> > think frankly it is an attempt to set up her own quasi GGTF since her
> > compatriots were banned. [...] 16:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
> >
> > ::::Thanks, and as for compatriots, next step in the thought experiment,
> > [...],
> > is precisely to now address that other, disagreeable, space and "phrase
the
> > implicit rules that keep me off that page", any ideas as to how
> > compatriotism
> > might express itself over there? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 08:40, 5 February
> > 2015 (UTC)
> >
> > ---
> >
> > any thoughts are welcome
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia
> > ***@w4w.net
> > GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From:Sydney Poore <***@gmail.com>
> > To:Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>, Research into Wikimedia
content
> > and communities <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:49:05 -0500
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> > > Hello Dariusz and everyone else,
> > >
> > > I'm interested in sharing ideas about the best way
> > > to discuss the gender gap in the wikimedia movement.
> > >
> > > While more information is always useful and at
> > > times necessary in order to measure change
> > > properly, if the previous data seems to still
> > > match the day to day observations pretty well then
> > > discounting the previous data as wrong just
> > > because it is outdated doesn't seem sensible.
> > >
> > > Since I've had the opportunity to observe the
> > > gender of wikimedia affiliated groups (both
> > > official and informal) from around the world, I
> > > can say with confidence that the wikimedia
> > > movement is still dominated by males. Both on and
> > > off line, except for diversity related events, I'm
> > > often the only women participating in discussions
> > > and rarely does the ratio exceed 3 in 10.
> > >
> > > To have my observation better documented would be
> > > great :-) I hope that more wikimedia organizations
> > > document the gender mix of content creators who
> > > are affiliated with their organization so that
> > > better research can be done.
> > >
> > > I encourage everyone to look at the up coming WMF
> > > Inspire Gender Gap grant campaign and see if they
> > > can find an opportunity to work on better data
> > > collection during this high profile campaign.
> > >
> > >
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire_Grants_%E2%80%93
> > _Gender_gap_campaign
> > >
> > > Sydney
> > >
> > > Sydney Poore
> > > User:FloNight
> > > Wikipedian in Residence
> > > at Cochrane Collaboration
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Dariusz
> > > Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > hi there,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you that a lot of data we
> > > > have is outdated, and that there are way too many generalizations
about
> > > > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and Mako pointed out in
> > their
> > > > paper (referred to by Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to
our
> > > > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods are far from
> > perfect.
> > As
> > > > far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> > > > publication coming up?
> > > >
> > > > best,
> > > >
> > > > dariusz
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
> > > >>
> > > >> hi all,
> > > >> can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
> > quantitative
> > > >> studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for
example,
> > and
> > > >> also
> > > >> changing the framework in which the data were created)
> > > >>
> > > >> another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
> > > >> languages,
> > > >> statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
> > language
> > > >> version (community) the data were created in/from.
> > > >> my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite
> > different
> > > >> from
> > > >> results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one
another
> > > >> differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a
> > differently
> > > >> gendered status in different communities, etc.
> > > >>
> > > >> the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
> > Wikipedia
> > > >> readers" question that this thread started with,
> > > >>
> > > >> best,
> > > >> Claudia
> > > >> ***@w4w.net
> > > >>
> > > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > >> From:Jeremy Foote <***@gmail.com>
> > > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
> > > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
> > > >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
Fwd:
> > > >> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > >>
> > > >> > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
> > > >> > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
> > > >> > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
> > > >> > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
> > > >> > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
> > > >> > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
> > > >> > and is at
> > > >> > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
> > > >> id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
> > > >> > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
> > > >> > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
> > > >> > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
> > > >> > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Best,
> > > >> > Jeremy
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > >> <***@gmail.com
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > Hoi,
> > > >> > > What year are we living ?
> > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > > GerardM
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net>
wrote:
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
> > > >> paradigm),
> > > >> > >> well...
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> > > >> considerations,
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge?
An
> > > >> ethnography
> > > >> > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > > >> > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011,
91
> > percent
> > > >> of
> > > >> > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011]
> > This
> > > >> figure
> > > >> > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online
> > survey
> > > >> > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
> > complete
> > > >> and
> > > >> > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
> > > >> likely to
> > > >> > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-
> > declarations
> > > >> of
> > > >> > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et
al.
> > 2011)
> > > >> may be
> > > >> > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their
> > gender
> > > >> in
> > > >> a
> > > >> > >> community perceived as male dominated."
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
> > > >> described
> > > >> > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the
one
> > quoted
> > > >> above)
> > > >> > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to
resist
> > any
> > > >> > >> changes;
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group
perceived
> > as
> > > >> > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes
most
> > > >> rewarding,
> > > >> > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible
and
> > not
> > > >> least
> > > >> > >> quote from them persistently, too...
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> best,
> > > >> > >> Claudia
> > > >> > >> ***@w4w.net
> > > >> > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > >> > >> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > >> > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-
> > research-
> > > >> > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > >> > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > > >> > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia
readers
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > > >> > >> > that could benefit Yana
> > > >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > >> > >> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > >> > >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > > >> > >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > >> > >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > > >> > >> > to increase the participation of women within
> > > >> > >> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > > >> > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > > >> > >> > (translated to English) are here:
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> >
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > > >> > >> f
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > > >> > >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > > >> > >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > > >> > >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > > >> > >> > would not say (page 26)
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > > >> > >> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > >> > >> >
> > > >> > >> > > Hi all,
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
> > readers?
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > >> > >> > > Yana
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > >> > > Gendergap mailing list
> > > >> > >> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> > >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
> > > >> unsubscribing,
> > > >> > >> please
> > > >> > >> > > visit:
> > > >> > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > > >> > >> > >
> > > >> > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > >> > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > >> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > >
> > > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> > > >>
> > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > __________________________
> > > > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> > > > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> > > > i centrum badawczego CROW
> > > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> > > > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
> > > >
> > > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> > > > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
> > > >
> > > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common
Knowledge?
> > An
> > > > Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> > > > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
> > > >
> > > > Recenzje
> > > > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> > > > Pacific Standard:
> > > > http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-
wikipedia-
> > 93777/
> > > > Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-
> > wikipedia
> > > > The Wikipedian:
> > > > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-
> > knowledge
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
------- End of Original Message -------
Bryce Peake
2015-02-16 17:43:19 UTC
Permalink
blah - English. I meant diverse sources of information. Sorry all.

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:39 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:

> Hi Bryce, interesting thoughts,
>
> can you quickly explain to me what you mean by "forms of information"?
>
> best,
> Claudia
> ***@w4w.net
> GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Bryce Peake <***@gmail.com>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:33:38 -0800
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on
> gender
> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > I agree with Claudia's point - counting two
> > genders is pretty outdated when you look at all of
> > the literature on gender AND sex as more fluid
> > (scientifically speaking) than binaries do
> > justice. This also makes me agree that the "gender
> > gap" is a bad way to continue bashing our heads
> > over this problem. What we want, methinks (please
> > disagree), is an encyclopedia where people from
> > any point on the gender/sex spectrum feel welcome
> > to contribute, and where we have a space welcoming
> > of -- and not hostile towards -- diverse forms of
> > information. That would suggest to me that the
> > ontological/count 'em all there approach to "how
> > many editors of operationalized genders" is not
> > confronting the actual problem (since some people
> > just don't like to edit Wikipedia).
> >
> > Just an idea, then, to parallel Claudia's: we
> > probably want a type of experimental design, where
> > we can follow people from all across the
> > gender/sex spectrum as they encounter, engage, and
> > edit Wikipedia. Using those experiences, then, we
> > can start to build *SOCIO*technical
> > responses/mechanisms to mitigate the hostilities
> > people experience based on gendered social
> > dynamics (all without reducing people to poorly
> > operationalized gender/sex binaries).
> >
> > That's not to say I don't enjoy massive surveys,
> > just that they seem ill suited for the actual
> > research problem.
> >
> > Bryce
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:21 AM,
> > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Sidney and everyone else,
> > >
> > > it seems to me that this list might be turned into a research ideas
> > > switchboard, here's some of my thoughts
> > >
> > > my impression is that counting just two genders is outdated, and maybe
> > > calling a phenomenon a "gender gap" might therefore no longer be
> suitable,
> > > either,
> > > anyone have any ideas for a solution here?
> > >
> > > we might be looking into the dynamics of power games from a slightly
> > > different angle,
> > > maybe someone could do some in-depth interviews with Wikimedians
> > > officially identifying as male who are willing to reflect on wm-related
> > > situations where they would possibly have felt better off as non-males
> > >
> > > actually, this idea just emerged from the back of my head, where I
> found
> a
> > > previous thought experiment (from a Miscellany_for_deletion discussion
> on
> > > enWP) still lingering a bit, which started in this way:
> > >
> > > * meta: in-principle debates usually show how rules are made to work
> (and
> > > kept up) that have been defined by a majority of people. Now let's do a
> > > small
> > > thought experiment: Imagine that the [...] page is a lovely place to
> > > contribute
> > > to. Then imagine that any other page you in principle wish to
> contribute
> > > to is
> > > actually a place you do not wish to be on because the climate among
> users
> > > is
> > > unbearable to you. Next step: Please phrase the implicit rules that
> keep
> me
> > > off that page and make them explicit here. Let's see what everyone
> might
> > > come up with. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
> > >
> > > :WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK comes to mind. [...] 17:39, 2 February 2015
> > > (UTC)
> > >
> > > ::Well then, given the thought experiment setting, why does just this
> one
> > > come to your mind, [...]? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2015
> > > (UTC)
> > >
> > > :::The section please introduce yourself is a forum for discussion not
> > > related
> > > to building an encylopedia. It's social in nature with some ambiguous
> > > goals. I
> > > think frankly it is an attempt to set up her own quasi GGTF since her
> > > compatriots were banned. [...] 16:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
> > >
> > > ::::Thanks, and as for compatriots, next step in the thought
> experiment,
> > > [...],
> > > is precisely to now address that other, disagreeable, space and "phrase
> the
> > > implicit rules that keep me off that page", any ideas as to how
> > > compatriotism
> > > might express itself over there? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 08:40, 5
> February
> > > 2015 (UTC)
> > >
> > > ---
> > >
> > > any thoughts are welcome
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Claudia
> > > ***@w4w.net
> > > GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > >
> > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > From:Sydney Poore <***@gmail.com>
> > > To:Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>, Research into Wikimedia
> content
> > > and communities <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:49:05 -0500
> > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > >
> > > > Hello Dariusz and everyone else,
> > > >
> > > > I'm interested in sharing ideas about the best way
> > > > to discuss the gender gap in the wikimedia movement.
> > > >
> > > > While more information is always useful and at
> > > > times necessary in order to measure change
> > > > properly, if the previous data seems to still
> > > > match the day to day observations pretty well then
> > > > discounting the previous data as wrong just
> > > > because it is outdated doesn't seem sensible.
> > > >
> > > > Since I've had the opportunity to observe the
> > > > gender of wikimedia affiliated groups (both
> > > > official and informal) from around the world, I
> > > > can say with confidence that the wikimedia
> > > > movement is still dominated by males. Both on and
> > > > off line, except for diversity related events, I'm
> > > > often the only women participating in discussions
> > > > and rarely does the ratio exceed 3 in 10.
> > > >
> > > > To have my observation better documented would be
> > > > great :-) I hope that more wikimedia organizations
> > > > document the gender mix of content creators who
> > > > are affiliated with their organization so that
> > > > better research can be done.
> > > >
> > > > I encourage everyone to look at the up coming WMF
> > > > Inspire Gender Gap grant campaign and see if they
> > > > can find an opportunity to work on better data
> > > > collection during this high profile campaign.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire_Grants_%E2%80%93
> > > _Gender_gap_campaign
> > > >
> > > > Sydney
> > > >
> > > > Sydney Poore
> > > > User:FloNight
> > > > Wikipedian in Residence
> > > > at Cochrane Collaboration
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Dariusz
> > > > Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > hi there,
> > > > >
> > > > > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you that a lot of
> data we
> > > > > have is outdated, and that there are way too many generalizations
> about
> > > > > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and Mako pointed out in
> > > their
> > > > > paper (referred to by Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to
> our
> > > > > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods are far from
> > > perfect.
> > > As
> > > > > far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> > > > > publication coming up?
> > > > >
> > > > > best,
> > > > >
> > > > > dariusz
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> hi all,
> > > > >> can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
> > > quantitative
> > > > >> studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for
> example,
> > > and
> > > > >> also
> > > > >> changing the framework in which the data were created)
> > > > >>
> > > > >> another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host
> of
> > > > >> languages,
> > > > >> statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
> > > language
> > > > >> version (community) the data were created in/from.
> > > > >> my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite
> > > different
> > > > >> from
> > > > >> results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one
> another
> > > > >> differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a
> > > differently
> > > > >> gendered status in different communities, etc.
> > > > >>
> > > > >> the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
> > > Wikipedia
> > > > >> readers" question that this thread started with,
> > > > >>
> > > > >> best,
> > > > >> Claudia
> > > > >> ***@w4w.net
> > > > >>
> > > > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > > >> From:Jeremy Foote <***@gmail.com>
> > > > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
> research-
> > > > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
> > > > >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
> Fwd:
> > > > >> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > > >>
> > > > >> > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
> > > > >> > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
> > > > >> > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
> > > > >> > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
> > > > >> > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
> > > > >> > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
> > > > >> > and is at
> > > > >> > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
> > > > >> id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
> > > > >> > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
> > > > >> > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
> > > > >> > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
> > > > >> > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > Best,
> > > > >> > Jeremy
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > > >> <***@gmail.com
> > > > >> > > wrote:
> > > > >> >
> > > > >> > > Hoi,
> > > > >> > > What year are we living ?
> > > > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > > GerardM
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <***@w4w.net>
> wrote:
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
> > > > >> paradigm),
> > > > >> > >> well...
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> > > > >> considerations,
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge?
> An
> > > > >> ethnography
> > > > >> > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > > > >> > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011,
> 91
> > > percent
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of
> 2011]
> > > This
> > > > >> figure
> > > > >> > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online
> > > survey
> > > > >> > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
> > > complete
> > > > >> and
> > > > >> > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are
> more
> > > > >> likely to
> > > > >> > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-
> > > declarations
> > > > >> of
> > > > >> > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et
> al.
> > > 2011)
> > > > >> may be
> > > > >> > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their
> > > gender
> > > > >> in
> > > > >> a
> > > > >> > >> community perceived as male dominated."
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
> > > > >> described
> > > > >> > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the
> one
> > > quoted
> > > > >> above)
> > > > >> > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to
> resist
> > > any
> > > > >> > >> changes;
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group
> perceived
> > > as
> > > > >> > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes
> most
> > > > >> rewarding,
> > > > >> > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible
> and
> > > not
> > > > >> least
> > > > >> > >> quote from them persistently, too...
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> best,
> > > > >> > >> Claudia
> > > > >> > >> ***@w4w.net
> > > > >> > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > > >> > >> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> <wiki-
> > > research-
> > > > >> > >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > >> > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > > > >> > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia
> readers
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > > > >> > >> > that could benefit Yana
> > > > >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > >> > >> > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > > >> > >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > > > >> > >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > > >> > >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > > > >> > >> > to increase the participation of women within
> > > > >> > >> > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > > > >> > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > > > >> > >> > (translated to English) are here:
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >>
> > > > >>
> > >
> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > > > >> > >> f
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > > > >> > >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > > > >> > >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > > > >> > >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > > > >> > >> > would not say (page 26)
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > > > >> > >> > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > > >> > >> >
> > > > >> > >> > > Hi all,
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
> > > readers?
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > Thanks,
> > > > >> > >> > > Yana
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > > >> > >> > > Gendergap mailing list
> > > > >> > >> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >> > >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
> > > > >> unsubscribing,
> > > > >> > >> please
> > > > >> > >> > > visit:
> > > > >> > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > > > >> > >> > >
> > > > >> > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > >> > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >>
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > > >> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > >> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> > >
> > > > >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> > > > >>
> > > > >> _______________________________________________
> > > > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > >>
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > >
> > > > > __________________________
> > > > > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> > > > > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> > > > > i centrum badawczego CROW
> > > > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> > > > > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
> > > > >
> > > > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> > > > > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
> > > > >
> > > > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common
> Knowledge?
> > > An
> > > > > Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> > > > > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
> > > > >
> > > > > Recenzje
> > > > > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> > > > > Pacific Standard:
> > > > > http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-
> wikipedia-
> > > 93777/
> > > > > Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-
> > > wikipedia
> > > > > The Wikipedian:
> > > > > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-
> > > knowledge
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
Kerry Raymond
2015-02-17 07:59:35 UTC
Permalink
I agree the issues are not necessarily about male-female interactions. It
may be about bully-victim interactions. I often suspect we are seeing an
online form of

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

playing out, where anyone can choose to be the prison guard enforcing the
rules (of which we have plenty) taking advantage of the lack of real-world
accountability (thanks to pseudonymity).

However, in terms of any kind of metric to measure progress, I think
measuring Male/Female/DontKnow is a lot more viable than trying to count the
number of bullies and victims (or powerful vs less powerful).

I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive to women, I rather suspect
we make it a more attractive place for everyone.

Kerry
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-17 08:20:03 UTC
Permalink
(disclaimer: research-wise, in this thread, I am speaking from a margin
position in a role maybe similar to the one Shakespeare potrays his fools in,
because it is not my field and I only have a rather vague idea of how people
actually undertake such studies)

re
> I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive
> to women, I rather suspect we make it a more
> attractive place for everyone.

what about yet another reversal game and see what happens:

this would be Kerry's statement from another perspective:
"I think if we can make Wikipedia less attractive
to men, I rather suspect we make it a more
attractive place for everyone."

what kind of reseach design would be needed for this?

best,
Claudia

---------- Original Message -----------
From:"Kerry Raymond" <***@gmail.com>
To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:59:35 +1000
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on
genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> I agree the issues are not necessarily about male-
> female interactions. It may be about bully-victim
> interactions. I often suspect we are seeing an
> online form of
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
>
> playing out, where anyone can choose to be the
> prison guard enforcing the rules (of which we have
> plenty) taking advantage of the lack of real-world
> accountability (thanks to pseudonymity).
>
> However, in terms of any kind of metric to measure
> progress, I think measuring Male/Female/DontKnow
> is a lot more viable than trying to count the
> number of bullies and victims (or powerful vs less
> powerful).
>
> I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive
> to women, I rather suspect we make it a more
> attractive place for everyone.
>
> Kerry
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
WereSpielChequers
2015-02-17 20:29:55 UTC
Permalink
This might appear to some to be getting a little off topic for this list, but if you are beginning to think that of this thread I would plead for a little indulgence, and for people to approach this thread from the angle of how can we form research projects around this. Like many people I regard the dark side of the community as a legitimate topic for research and I would point out that the foundation is offering grant funds for projects targeted at the gender gap.

My reversal of Kerry's statement would be more like:

"I think if we can make Wikipedia less attractive to bullies, I rather suspect we make it a more attractive place for everyone else."

Since we don't know how to do this (yes there are some easy part solutions out there, but no magic bullets, certainly none that wouldn't have troubling side effects) there is an opportunity for researchers to make some innovative proposals.

Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> On 17 Feb 2015, at 08:20, ***@w4w.net wrote:
>
> (disclaimer: research-wise, in this thread, I am speaking from a margin
> position in a role maybe similar to the one Shakespeare potrays his fools in,
> because it is not my field and I only have a rather vague idea of how people
> actually undertake such studies)
>
> re
>> I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive
>> to women, I rather suspect we make it a more
>> attractive place for everyone.
>
> what about yet another reversal game and see what happens:
>
> this would be Kerry's statement from another perspective:
> "I think if we can make Wikipedia less attractive
> to men, I rather suspect we make it a more
> attractive place for everyone."
>
> what kind of reseach design would be needed for this?
>
> best,
> Claudia
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:"Kerry Raymond" <***@gmail.com>
> To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" <wiki-research-
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:59:35 +1000
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on
> genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
>> I agree the issues are not necessarily about male-
>> female interactions. It may be about bully-victim
>> interactions. I often suspect we are seeing an
>> online form of
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
>>
>> playing out, where anyone can choose to be the
>> prison guard enforcing the rules (of which we have
>> plenty) taking advantage of the lack of real-world
>> accountability (thanks to pseudonymity).
>>
>> However, in terms of any kind of metric to measure
>> progress, I think measuring Male/Female/DontKnow
>> is a lot more viable than trying to count the
>> number of bullies and victims (or powerful vs less
>> powerful).
>>
>> I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive
>> to women, I rather suspect we make it a more
>> attractive place for everyone.
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>> research-l
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-19 12:36:31 UTC
Permalink
hm,

a. > the dark side

... might be where most bright light bulbs are producing the nicest shades of
shadow ;-)

b. > how can we form research projects around this

maybe by looking at how power is being upheld by those in power instead of
looking at what those should do or have done that have less of it (or seem to
have);
only then look at what could be done to create other hegemonies (maybe
take what Chantal Mouffe is saying re antagonist agonism, in: Agonistics.
Thinking the World Politically, 2013)

best,
Claudia

---------- Original Message -----------
From:WereSpielChequers <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:29:55 +0000
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on
genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> This might appear to some to be getting a little
> off topic for this list, but if you are beginning
> to think that of this thread I would plead for a
> little indulgence, and for people to approach this
> thread from the angle of how can we form research
> projects around this. Like many people I regard
> the dark side of the community as a legitimate
> topic for research and I would point out that the
> foundation is offering grant funds for projects
> targeted at the gender gap.
>
> My reversal of Kerry's statement would be more like:
>
> "I think if we can make Wikipedia less attractive
> to bullies, I rather suspect we make it a more
> attractive place for everyone else."
>
> Since we don't know how to do this (yes there are
> some easy part solutions out there, but no magic
> bullets, certainly none that wouldn't have
> troubling side effects) there is an opportunity
> for researchers to make some innovative proposals.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Cardy
>
> > On 17 Feb 2015, at 08:20, ***@w4w.net wrote:
> >
> > (disclaimer: research-wise, in this thread, I am speaking from a margin
> > position in a role maybe similar to the one Shakespeare potrays his fools
in,
> > because it is not my field and I only have a rather vague idea of how
people
> > actually undertake such studies)
> >
> > re
> >> I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive
> >> to women, I rather suspect we make it a more
> >> attractive place for everyone.
> >
> > what about yet another reversal game and see what happens:
> >
> > this would be Kerry's statement from another perspective:
> > "I think if we can make Wikipedia less attractive
> > to men, I rather suspect we make it a more
> > attractive place for everyone."
> >
> > what kind of reseach design would be needed for this?
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From:"Kerry Raymond" <***@gmail.com>
> > To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" <wiki-
research-
> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:59:35 +1000
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on
> > genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> >> I agree the issues are not necessarily about male-
> >> female interactions. It may be about bully-victim
> >> interactions. I often suspect we are seeing an
> >> online form of
> >>
> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
> >>
> >> playing out, where anyone can choose to be the
> >> prison guard enforcing the rules (of which we have
> >> plenty) taking advantage of the lack of real-world
> >> accountability (thanks to pseudonymity).
> >>
> >> However, in terms of any kind of metric to measure
> >> progress, I think measuring Male/Female/DontKnow
> >> is a lot more viable than trying to count the
> >> number of bullies and victims (or powerful vs less
> >> powerful).
> >>
> >> I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive
> >> to women, I rather suspect we make it a more
> >> attractive place for everyone.
> >>
> >> Kerry
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> >> research-l
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
aaron shaw
2015-02-17 04:50:17 UTC
Permalink
Hi all!

Thanks, Jeremy & Dariusz for following up.

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl>
wrote:

> As far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> publication coming up?


Sadly, no follow ups at the moment.

If we want to have a more precise sense of the demographics of participants
the biggest need in this space is simply higher quality survey data. My
paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why the 2008 editor survey (and
all subsequent editor surveys, to my knowledge) has some profound
limitations.

The identification and estimation of the effects of particular causes and
mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related participation gaps)
presents an even tougher challenge for researchers and is an area of active
inquiry.

all the best,
Aaron
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-17 06:41:27 UTC
Permalink
Hi WereSpielChequers, Kerry, Aaron and all,

____WereSpielChequers wrote:
"the community is more abrasive towards women"

this may be stats expert discourse, but let me show you how the question
itself has a gendered slant.
imagine what would happen - also in your research design - if it read: "the
community is less abrasive towards men" - how does this compare to the
first question re who are "the community"?

and again, re phasing ten years in 2011 and four years on, which language
version(s) are hypotheses based on?

____Kerry wrote:
"But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this
particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
progress against that target, one has to question the point of establishing a
target."

I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
measuring the progress...
and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might add, in
speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation does
not fund any top level research... - or does it?

____Aaron wrote:
"higher quality survey data"
well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so low?
and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards?

"causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related
participation gaps)"
which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of participation?
and, again, in which language version(s)?

best,
Claudia

---------- Original Message -----------
From:aaron shaw <***@northwestern.edu>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:50:17 -0800
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hi all!
>
> Thanks, Jeremy & Dariusz for following up.
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Dariusz
> Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
>
> > As far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> > publication coming up?
>
> Sadly, no follow ups at the moment.
>
> If we want to have a more precise sense of the
> demographics of participants the biggest need in
> this space is simply higher quality survey data.
> My paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why
> the 2008 editor survey (and all subsequent editor
> surveys, to my knowledge) has some profound limitations.
>
> The identification and estimation of the effects
> of particular causes and mechanisms that drive the
> gender gap (and related participation gaps)
> presents an even tougher challenge for
> researchers and is an area of active inquiry.
>
> all the best,
> Aaron
------- End of Original Message -------
Jane Darnell
2015-02-17 08:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Hi Claudial,
I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable.
Jane

____WereSpielChequers wrote:
"the community is more abrasive towards women"

I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the conclusion
was "the community can be perceived to be abrasive" and this conclusion, in
yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should be rephrased as
"the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women than by men"

____Kerry wrote:
"But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this
particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
progress against that target, one has to question the point of establishing
a
target."

___Claudia (responding to Kerry):
I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
measuring the progress...
and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
add, in
speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
does
not fund any top level research... - or does it?

I think here you are forgetting about the "holy shit graph" which shows a
reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of a
direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been
stated before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage.
Oddly, I think it is one of the easiest of all "participatory gaps" to
measure, but we seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that
previous editor surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of
never actually being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we
have not yet been able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing
apples to oranges.

____Aaron wrote:
"higher quality survey data"
__Claudia (responding to Aaron): ...how does one recognize low quality..?
Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the criticism of the various editor
surveys. Is this stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift through
reams of emails until we find all the various objections? Objections
galore, as I recall.

___Claudia: which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
Off the top of my head, some of these would be

1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as active editors in rural
areas or even in whole states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the whole
"Global South participation problem" (the Global South participation
problem is even helped along inadvertently by the new read-only
"Wikipedia-zero" effect);
2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that technically don't lend
themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical
production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to make movies, how to
choreograph motion)
3) lack of topical expertise on subjects that legally don't lend themselves
well to the Wikiverse, such as articles about artworks under copyright that
cannot be illustrated in an article;
4) lack of topical editor coverage on subjects previously shut out - there
is still unwillingness by a whole group to re-enter the Wikiverse after
being banned (earlier shut-outs such as blocking whole institution-wide ip
ranges for vandalism or whole areas of expertise such as groups of writers
for their COI editing, carry with them a history of anti-Wikipedia
sentiment that lasts a long time in various enclaves)

___Claudia:
and, again, in which language version(s)?
That's easy - the languages that we can technically support but don't yet
have Wikipedias for and the languages for which we don't even have the
fonts to display them.

best,
Claudia


On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:41 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:

> Hi WereSpielChequers, Kerry, Aaron and all,
>
> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
>
> this may be stats expert discourse, but let me show you how the question
> itself has a gendered slant.
> imagine what would happen - also in your research design - if it read: "the
> community is less abrasive towards men" - how does this compare to the
> first question re who are "the community"?
>
> and again, re phasing ten years in 2011 and four years on, which language
> version(s) are hypotheses based on?
>
> ____Kerry wrote:
> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this
> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
> progress against that target, one has to question the point of
> establishing a
> target."
>
> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
> measuring the progress...
> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
> add, in
> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
> does
> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
>
> ____Aaron wrote:
> "higher quality survey data"
> well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so low?
> and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards?
>
> "causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related
> participation gaps)"
> which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
> where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of participation?
> and, again, in which language version(s)?
>
> best,
> Claudia
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:aaron shaw <***@northwestern.edu>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:50:17 -0800
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
> > Hi all!
> >
> > Thanks, Jeremy & Dariusz for following up.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Dariusz
> > Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> >
> > > As far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> > > publication coming up?
> >
> > Sadly, no follow ups at the moment.
> >
> > If we want to have a more precise sense of the
> > demographics of participants the biggest need in
> > this space is simply higher quality survey data.
> > My paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why
> > the 2008 editor survey (and all subsequent editor
> > surveys, to my knowledge) has some profound limitations.
> >
> > The identification and estimation of the effects
> > of particular causes and mechanisms that drive the
> > gender gap (and related participation gaps)
> > presents an even tougher challenge for
> > researchers and is an area of active inquiry.
> >
> > all the best,
> > Aaron
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
WereSpielChequers
2015-02-17 20:52:10 UTC
Permalink
My comment "It could even test the theory that the community is more abrasive towards women. We know that we are less successful at recruiting female editors than male ones, I'm not sure if we have tested whether we are more successful at retaining established male editors than female ones, and if so whether we are losing women because they are lured away or driven away." Seems to have been shortened to me saying that "the community is more abrasive towards women". Before people continue using that quotation and attributing it to me, may I point out that I regard it as an interesting theory worth researching, not as a proven statement. I don't doubt that we have a massively male skew in the community, I have seen too many pieces of evidence that all point that way to doubt that. I am also fairly sure that women, and I'd add gays are more likely to be attacked by trolls and others from outside what I regard as the wikipedia community than straight white men like myself. But I don't know if the community is more abrasive to women or in what way it is, and I would be interested to see more research done in that area.

Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> On 17 Feb 2015, at 08:00, Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Claudial,
> I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable.
> Jane
>
> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
>
> I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the conclusion was "the community can be perceived to be abrasive" and this conclusion, in yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should be rephrased as "the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women than by men"
>
> ____Kerry wrote:
> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this
> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
> progress against that target, one has to question the point of establishing a
> target."
>
> ___Claudia (responding to Kerry):
> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
> measuring the progress...
> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might add, in
> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation does
> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
>
> I think here you are forgetting about the "holy shit graph" which shows a reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of a direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been stated before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage. Oddly, I think it is one of the easiest of all "participatory gaps" to measure, but we seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that previous editor surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of never actually being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we have not yet been able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing apples to oranges.
>
> ____Aaron wrote:
> "higher quality survey data"
> __Claudia (responding to Aaron): ...how does one recognize low quality..?
> Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the criticism of the various editor surveys. Is this stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift through reams of emails until we find all the various objections? Objections galore, as I recall.
>
> ___Claudia: which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
> Off the top of my head, some of these would be
>
> 1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as active editors in rural areas or even in whole states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the whole "Global South participation problem" (the Global South participation problem is even helped along inadvertently by the new read-only "Wikipedia-zero" effect);
> 2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that technically don't lend themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to make movies, how to choreograph motion)
> 3) lack of topical expertise on subjects that legally don't lend themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as articles about artworks under copyright that cannot be illustrated in an article;
> 4) lack of topical editor coverage on subjects previously shut out - there is still unwillingness by a whole group to re-enter the Wikiverse after being banned (earlier shut-outs such as blocking whole institution-wide ip ranges for vandalism or whole areas of expertise such as groups of writers for their COI editing, carry with them a history of anti-Wikipedia sentiment that lasts a long time in various enclaves)
>
> ___Claudia:
> and, again, in which language version(s)?
> That's easy - the languages that we can technically support but don't yet have Wikipedias for and the languages for which we don't even have the fonts to display them.
>
> best,
> Claudia
>
>
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:41 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>> Hi WereSpielChequers, Kerry, Aaron and all,
>>
>> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
>> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
>>
>> this may be stats expert discourse, but let me show you how the question
>> itself has a gendered slant.
>> imagine what would happen - also in your research design - if it read: "the
>> community is less abrasive towards men" - how does this compare to the
>> first question re who are "the community"?
>>
>> and again, re phasing ten years in 2011 and four years on, which language
>> version(s) are hypotheses based on?
>>
>> ____Kerry wrote:
>> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this
>> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
>> progress against that target, one has to question the point of establishing a
>> target."
>>
>> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
>> measuring the progress...
>> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might add, in
>> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation does
>> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
>>
>> ____Aaron wrote:
>> "higher quality survey data"
>> well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so low?
>> and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards?
>>
>> "causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related
>> participation gaps)"
>> which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
>> where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of participation?
>> and, again, in which language version(s)?
>>
>> best,
>> Claudia
>>
>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> From:aaron shaw <***@northwestern.edu>
>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:50:17 -0800
>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>
>> > Hi all!
>> >
>> > Thanks, Jeremy & Dariusz for following up.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Dariusz
>> > Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
>> >
>> > > As far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
>> > > publication coming up?
>> >
>> > Sadly, no follow ups at the moment.
>> >
>> > If we want to have a more precise sense of the
>> > demographics of participants the biggest need in
>> > this space is simply higher quality survey data.
>> > My paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why
>> > the 2008 editor survey (and all subsequent editor
>> > surveys, to my knowledge) has some profound limitations.
>> >
>> > The identification and estimation of the effects
>> > of particular causes and mechanisms that drive the
>> > gender gap (and related participation gaps)
>> > presents an even tougher challenge for
>> > researchers and is an area of active inquiry.
>> >
>> > all the best,
>> > Aaron
>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-18 11:23:31 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jonathan Cardy and all, (see below for some software issues)

I agree with your argument, WereSpielChequers/ Jonathan Cardy, and I would
like to hear more details about
> many pieces of evidence
since these, I am told, usually form a good basis for hypotheses that might
be used in qualitative studies. It seems to me that my attempt at starting
thought experiment I quote a few lines from here
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015-
February/004188.html
might have produced similar data; or might be restarted in a different
setting, maybe

btw, my apologies, and thank you for your clarification. Actually, I did not
intend to quote the statement in any personal attribution kind of way, but for
a reversal experiment of the wording.
I was assembling a few bits and pieces from different parts of different
threads, and this was my way of making sure people would find the context
again if they chose to; next time, I will try to look for a different method of
presenting material for any language games.

re "the Wikipedia community" I'd say that since it constitutes itself in adhoc
teams, every user is a member, even if only for one edit or just by adding a fe
pages to a watchlist after registration -- irrespective of the number of
accounts the person behind a login name might be using to join the game
board Wikipedia. From my point of view, there simply is a large variety in
how people use any of the functions (or a combination of them) that the
software of the platform offers -- and any and all use cases contribute to what
makes the Wikipedia community. I do not have any romantic inclinations
here. If it is an open system it is an open system for all use cases and their
inventors, be they acting adhoc way or in a kind of more systematic gaming -
- that one might have to regard as systemic after all.

so if mediawiki enables users to behave like bullies, my question would be:
does anyone have any insights as to the chances of changing the software to
make Wikipedia a less welcoming place to users behaving like bullies?
or would most experts currently say that mediawiki software does not have
anything to do with it ;-) ?

best,
Claudia

---------- Original Message -----------
From:WereSpielChequers <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:52:10 +0000
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> My comment "It could even test the theory that the
> community is more abrasive towards women. We know
> that we are less successful at recruiting female
> editors than male ones, I'm not sure if we have
> tested whether we are more successful at retaining
> established male editors than female ones, and if
> so whether we are losing women because they are
> lured away or driven away." Seems to have been
> shortened to me saying that "the community is more
> abrasive towards women". Before people continue
> using that quotation and attributing it to me, may
> I point out that I regard it as an interesting
> theory worth researching, not as a proven
> statement. I don't doubt that we have a massively
> male skew in the community, I have seen too many
> pieces of evidence that all point that way to
> doubt that. I am also fairly sure that women, and
> I'd add gays are more likely to be attacked by
> trolls and others from outside what I regard as
> the wikipedia community than straight white men
> like myself. But I don't know if the community is
> more abrasive to women or in what way it is, and I
> would be interested to see more research done in
> that area.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Cardy
>
> > On 17 Feb 2015, at 08:00, Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Claudial,
> > I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable.
> > Jane
> >
> > ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
> > "the community is more abrasive towards women"
> >
> > I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the conclusion
was "the community can be perceived to be abrasive" and this conclusion, in
yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should be rephrased as
"the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women than by men"
> >
> > ____Kerry wrote:
> > "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in
this
> > particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring
the
> > progress against that target, one has to question the point of
establishing a
> > target."
> >
> > ___Claudia (responding to Kerry):
> > I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
> > measuring the progress...
> > and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might add,
in
> > speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
does
> > not fund any top level research... - or does it?
> >
> > I think here you are forgetting about the "holy shit graph" which shows a
reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of a
direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been stated
before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage. Oddly, I
think it is one of the easiest of all "participatory gaps" to measure, but we
seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that previous editor
surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of never actually
being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we have not yet been
able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing apples to oranges.
> >
> > ____Aaron wrote:
> > "higher quality survey data"
> > __Claudia (responding to Aaron): ...how does one recognize low
quality..?
> > Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the criticism of the various editor
surveys. Is this stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift through
reams of emails until we find all the various objections? Objections galore, as
I recall.
> >
> > ___Claudia: which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
> > Off the top of my head, some of these would be
> >
> > 1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as active editors in rural
areas or even in whole states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the
whole "Global South participation problem" (the Global South participation
problem is even helped along inadvertently by the new read-only "Wikipedia-
zero" effect);
> > 2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that technically don't lend
themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical
production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to make movies, how to
choreograph motion)
> > 3) lack of topical expertise on subjects that legally don't lend themselves
well to the Wikiverse, such as articles about artworks under copyright that
cannot be illustrated in an article;
> > 4) lack of topical editor coverage on subjects previously shut out - there
is still unwillingness by a whole group to re-enter the Wikiverse after being
banned (earlier shut-outs such as blocking whole institution-wide ip ranges
for vandalism or whole areas of expertise such as groups of writers for their
COI editing, carry with them a history of anti-Wikipedia sentiment that lasts a
long time in various enclaves)
> >
> > ___Claudia:
> > and, again, in which language version(s)?
> > That's easy - the languages that we can technically support but don't yet
have Wikipedias for and the languages for which we don't even have the
fonts to display them.
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia
> >
> >
> >> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:41 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >> Hi WereSpielChequers, Kerry, Aaron and all,
> >>
> >> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
> >> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
> >>
> >> this may be stats expert discourse, but let me show you how the
question
> >> itself has a gendered slant.
> >> imagine what would happen - also in your research design - if it read:
"the
> >> community is less abrasive towards men" - how does this compare to
the
> >> first question re who are "the community"?
> >>
> >> and again, re phasing ten years in 2011 and four years on, which
language
> >> version(s) are hypotheses based on?
> >>
> >> ____Kerry wrote:
> >> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in
this
> >> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring
the
> >> progress against that target, one has to question the point of
establishing a
> >> target."
> >>
> >> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
> >> measuring the progress...
> >> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
add, in
> >> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
does
> >> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
> >>
> >> ____Aaron wrote:
> >> "higher quality survey data"
> >> well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so
low?
> >> and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards?
> >>
> >> "causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related
> >> participation gaps)"
> >> which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
> >> where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of participation?
> >> and, again, in which language version(s)?
> >>
> >> best,
> >> Claudia
> >>
> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> >> From:aaron shaw <***@northwestern.edu>
> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> >> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:50:17 -0800
> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> >> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>
> >> > Hi all!
> >> >
> >> > Thanks, Jeremy & Dariusz for following up.
> >> >
> >> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Dariusz
> >> > Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > As far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> >> > > publication coming up?
> >> >
> >> > Sadly, no follow ups at the moment.
> >> >
> >> > If we want to have a more precise sense of the
> >> > demographics of participants the biggest need in
> >> > this space is simply higher quality survey data.
> >> > My paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why
> >> > the 2008 editor survey (and all subsequent editor
> >> > surveys, to my knowledge) has some profound limitations.
> >> >
> >> > The identification and estimation of the effects
> >> > of particular causes and mechanisms that drive the
> >> > gender gap (and related participation gaps)
> >> > presents an even tougher challenge for
> >> > researchers and is an area of active inquiry.
> >> >
> >> > all the best,
> >> > Aaron
> >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
Kerry Raymond
2015-02-18 23:04:02 UTC
Permalink
On the question of whether "mediawiki enables users to behave like bullies"
...

Like many technologies, we can use them for good or bad. A car can carry a
sick person to a hospital in time to save their life. A car can run down and
kill a person. Etc. But we do know that we can design cars to make them
safer, both for their occupants (roll cages, seat belts, etc) and for other
road users (e.g. banning the use of bull bars), but if I really want to kill
myself or others, I can still do so with a car, I just have to try a bit
harder.

In the same vein, MediaWiki can be used in different ways. A User Talk page
can be used to leave a Barnstar or call the person a "cunt" (to pick a
recent topical example). Thanks to the user contribution page, I can easily
find and revert every change you make. Now, maybe they were all bad edits
(e.g. unsourced allegations about a living person) that were justified. Or
maybe I am just harassing you or taking retribution for something you did or
said to me or about me. What if I could not see your user contribution page?
Would that make it harder for me to harass you?

At the moment, a couple of clicks reverts an edit. What if we substituted a
long form, where you had to click a box to select a primary policy under
which you were reverting the edit, and then select a drop-down for a
specific aspect of that policy, and then fill in a text box with 100 words
explaining your concerns? I think it's fair to say that there would be less
reverting, but whether that is for better or worse is hard to say until you
try it.

What if we got rid of User Talk pages and only had article Talk pages? Would
our interactions change?

Interestingly, it's as easy to thank someone for an edit as to revert an
edit (not using any tools), yet the number of thanks are incredibly low. How
low ... take a look at the stats for January:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:F%C3%A6/sandbox&oldid=1
49050523

(and woo hoo I made the top-10 on something in Wikipedia!)

Why are thanks so low on Wikipedia compared with Facebook LIKEs? Why don't
we let the Wikipedia readers click on a Thank-you button if they like an
article, which delivers some kind of warm fuzzy message to its top
contributors or recent contributors or all contributors or adds to their
"good karma" score or something? I note that Facebook took away their old
"thumbs down" button (was that an example of redesigning an interface to
make it harder to be nasty to someone?)

But it would seem that, with A/B testing, we can measure how changing the
interface of MediaWiki changes behaviour quantitatively (it may be harder to
assess how it changes it qualitatively).

But maybe we can even do some kind of qualitative assessment of the change.
Aaron and others (apologies if I am not giving credit where it is due) have
developed a tool to make reasonable machine assessments of article quality.
Could we develop some kind of metric of "sentiment" in user interaction and
see if that is changing under A/B testing? It may even be that letting
user's see their own "sentiment" score may cause self-correcting behaviour.
Maybe we don't realise we are becoming older and grumpier.

Kerry, older and grumpier (some times)
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-19 05:40:51 UTC
Permalink
thank you, Kerry,
any other opinions on techno-(non)-determinism and on how mediawiki
software has "an influence on" Wikipedia community climate?

What if alot of bullying is undertaken by users who prefer to act undercover
with multiple accounts but a mediawiki registration page encourages you to
simply create a new account?

anyway, two comments

> Why are thanks so low on Wikipedia compared with Facebook LIKEs?

mainstream research, I guess, would point at gender ratios (counting just
two genders, however)

yet, thanking someone in a chatty environment may be a different matter to
thanking someone in a "serious" knowledge-oriented project (whose social
network aspects are often renounced)

> It may even be that letting user's see their own "sentiment" score may
cause self-correcting behaviour.

my guess is that self-correcting one's behaviour is precisely not what users
who tend to bully others come to Wikipedia for ;-)

what makes people stay might rather be ample proofs of how much fun it is
not only for oneself but also for others to bully or "correct" others
it might this proof of how much fun prolonged disputes can be that makes
people stay who happily keep gaming in this environment...

so I guess we should look more into how the culture of "correction" (mainly
directed towards others...) is given too large a playing field among
community members of the English version of Wikipedia (am I right in
guessing that the majority of users still has a background in
protestant/evangelical training and maybe world view?)

also, looking into dispute culture vs. discussion culture -- relative to
respective cultural habits and perceptions of how these work and if they are
distinguishable at all -- might yield interesting outcomes, has anyone
studied this for the community climate on English language Wikipedia?

best,
Claudia

---------- Original Message -----------
From:"Kerry Raymond" <***@gmail.com>
To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:04:02 +1000
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> On the question of whether "mediawiki enables
> users to behave like bullies" ...
>
> Like many technologies, we can use them for good
> or bad. A car can carry a sick person to a
> hospital in time to save their life. A car can run
> down and kill a person. Etc. But we do know that
> we can design cars to make them safer, both for
> their occupants (roll cages, seat belts, etc) and
> for other road users (e.g. banning the use of bull
> bars), but if I really want to kill myself or
> others, I can still do so with a car, I just have
> to try a bit harder.
>
> In the same vein, MediaWiki can be used in
> different ways. A User Talk page can be used to
> leave a Barnstar or call the person a "cunt" (to
> pick a recent topical example). Thanks to the user
> contribution page, I can easily find and revert
> every change you make. Now, maybe they were all
> bad edits
> (e.g. unsourced allegations about a living person)
> that were justified. Or maybe I am just harassing
> you or taking retribution for something you did or
> said to me or about me. What if I could not see
> your user contribution page? Would that make it
> harder for me to harass you?
>
> At the moment, a couple of clicks reverts an edit.
> What if we substituted a long form, where you had
> to click a box to select a primary policy under
> which you were reverting the edit, and then select
> a drop-down for a specific aspect of that policy,
> and then fill in a text box with 100 words
> explaining your concerns? I think it's fair to say
> that there would be less reverting, but whether
> that is for better or worse is hard to say until
> you try it.
>
> What if we got rid of User Talk pages and only had
> article Talk pages? Would our interactions change?
>
> Interestingly, it's as easy to thank someone for
> an edit as to revert an edit (not using any tools),
> yet the number of thanks are incredibly low. How
> low ... take a look at the stats for January:
>
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?
title=User:F%C3%A6/sandbox&oldid=1
> 49050523
>
> (and woo hoo I made the top-10 on something in
> Wikipedia!)
>
> Why are thanks so low on Wikipedia compared with
> Facebook LIKEs? Why don't we let the Wikipedia
> readers click on a Thank-you button if they like
> an article, which delivers some kind of warm fuzzy
> message to its top contributors or recent
> contributors or all contributors or adds to their
> "good karma" score or something? I note that
> Facebook took away their old "thumbs down" button
> (was that an example of redesigning an interface
> to make it harder to be nasty to someone?)
>
> But it would seem that, with A/B testing, we can
> measure how changing the interface of MediaWiki
> changes behaviour quantitatively (it may be harder
> to assess how it changes it qualitatively).
>
> But maybe we can even do some kind of qualitative
> assessment of the change. Aaron and others
> (apologies if I am not giving credit where it is
> due) have developed a tool to make reasonable
> machine assessments of article quality. Could we
> develop some kind of metric of "sentiment" in user
> interaction and see if that is changing under A/B
> testing? It may even be that letting user's see
> their own "sentiment" score may cause self-
> correcting behaviour. Maybe we don't realise we
> are becoming older and grumpier.
>
> Kerry, older and grumpier (some times)
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
Kerry Raymond
2015-02-20 01:18:15 UTC
Permalink
I agree if a person enjoys bullying, they are unlikely to self-correct. But
an "interaction sentiment tool" makes it easier for the community to spot
these people, and look more closely into what they are doing. Then try to
get them to change, and <rinse and repeat> until such time as they ban them.



My comment about self-correcting behaviour is about people who don't intend
to be a bully but behave abrasively without realising it. We have a lot of
battle-weary editors out there who have just seen one too many vandalism,
one too many blatant self-promotional article, etc and they become inclined
to just shoot down "yet another" with increasing reluctance to check out the
merits of the specific case, or to be terse and unhelpful in a Talk message
etc. We've probably all had those moments of finding some new user's
contribution that needs so much work to improve and thought "I'm just too
busy, I don't have time to educate yet another one who probably won't stick
around anyway, I'll just delete it and move on". I believe that most of our
community does not intend to be a "bully" but may not be aware that is how
they might seem to others at times. Letting people be aware that their
interaction style is exhibiting higher than average "negative sentiment"
*is* likely to change the behaviour of that group.



Obviously if we were to put such a tool out there, I'd suggest adding some
general advice about what you might do if your score is "pretty negative",
e.g.

* think about the choice of words you use, don't use words like ..., instead
use ...

* are you terse or just point to a policy without being specific about your
concerns

* could you have suggested a solution rather than just pointing out a
problem?

* is it time for a wiki-break to recharge your batteries?



The sentiment score is likely to be generated from assessment of a number of
elements of the observed interactions, so, for an individual looking at
their score, it might be possible to make specific suggestions based on
specific component scores, e.g. pointing out specific "abrasive" words being
used regularly and suggesting alternatives.



Here's a suggestion for something a lot simpler than the "international
sentiment tool". Just produce some word clouds for:

* a user's edit summaries

* a user's edits on article Talk pages

* a user's edits on other people's User Talk pages

* a user's edits on their own User Talk page



What does that show us about people?



Kerry
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-20 08:02:04 UTC
Permalink
Hi Kerry,

I think that such a tool, if ever, should be used only if everyone who agrees
with implementing it has had their own behaviour analysed publicly...
btw,
one reason why the "thank you" function is not used widely on Wikipedia
might be that their logs are made public, even if for the entries some
information is scraped. I consider screened does not usually have the effect
of trust enhancement, so this would be an interesting issue to look into for
the measures you suggest.
my position is that with any kind of surveillance, alleged benefits never
balance the losses, for individual and social freedom, for a culture of mutual
trust, for sharing freely what would otherwise risk to be self-censored, not
least for civil society's antimilitarist activism, etc. ...

my cautious note on gender stats (that seem to talk about facts re the enWP
community) is in part motivated by similar thoughts as yours, Kerry,
pinpointing behaviour and drawing conclusions;
because:
talking about any numbers in a short line of no more that 10 words will never
allow for any transparency about the assumptions underlying the measuring
and counting exercise, but it is precisely these that *create* the data in the
first place,
and I guess that the concept-creating exercise that I read in your mail
therefore would have to be made public, too, in as easy words as you do here,
and not in any discourse that is inaccessible for too many of those (like
myself) who would be affected by an implementation

I guess that while goodwill is nice (to read about), research in my
understanding should start from reflections about one's own perspective and
not from any claims about "what is out there" -- but rather: "what do I see to
be the case out there" and also: why do I perceive this to be my perception --
yes, it is no less complicated that this, and I am not the first one to argue in
this vein

anyway, here again, Lorde's insight that the master's tools will never
dismantle the master's house might serve as a cautious note about any claim
published and quoted in/from mainstream research

best,
Claudia

---------- Original Message -----------
From:"Kerry Raymond" <***@gmail.com>
To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:18:15 +1000
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> I agree if a person enjoys bullying, they are
> unlikely to self-correct. But an "interaction
> sentiment tool" makes it easier for the community
> to spot these people, and look more closely into
> what they are doing. Then try to get them to
> change, and <rinse and repeat> until such time as
> they ban them.
>
> My comment about self-correcting behaviour is
> about people who don't intend to be a bully but
> behave abrasively without realising it. We have a
> lot of battle-weary editors out there who have
> just seen one too many vandalism, one too many
> blatant self-promotional article, etc and they
> become inclined to just shoot down "yet another"
> with increasing reluctance to check out the merits
> of the specific case, or to be terse and unhelpful
> in a Talk message etc. We've probably all had
> those moments of finding some new user's
> contribution that needs so much work to improve
> and thought "I'm just too busy, I don't have time
> to educate yet another one who probably won't
> stick around anyway, I'll just delete it and move
> on". I believe that most of our community does not
> intend to be a "bully" but may not be aware that
> is how they might seem to others at times. Letting
> people be aware that their interaction style is
> exhibiting higher than average "negative
> sentiment" *is* likely to change the behaviour of
> that group.
>
> Obviously if we were to put such a tool out there,
> I'd suggest adding some general advice about what
> you might do if your score is "pretty negative",
> e.g.
>
> * think about the choice of words you use, don't
> use words like ..., instead use ...
>
> * are you terse or just point to a policy without
> being specific about your concerns
>
> * could you have suggested a solution rather than
> just pointing out a problem?
>
> * is it time for a wiki-break to recharge your batteries?
>
> The sentiment score is likely to be generated from
> assessment of a number of elements of the observed
> interactions, so, for an individual looking at
> their score, it might be possible to make specific
> suggestions based on specific component scores,
> e.g. pointing out specific "abrasive" words being
> used regularly and suggesting alternatives.
>
> Here's a suggestion for something a lot simpler
> than the "international sentiment tool". Just
> produce some word clouds for:
>
> * a user's edit summaries
>
> * a user's edits on article Talk pages
>
> * a user's edits on other people's User
> Talk pages
>
> * a user's edits on their own User Talk page
>
> What does that show us about people?
>
> Kerry
------- End of Original Message -------
Kerry Raymond
2015-02-20 22:46:43 UTC
Permalink
Claudia

Our behaviour on Wikipedia is public (for better or worse). But a tool that
analyses it can of course be limited to allow users to see only the analysis
of their own behaviour and show them where they sit on a graph relative to
unidentified others. However, based on past discussions of privacy and
analysis tools, I suspect others will argue that if the data is public, why
shouldn't the analysis also be public?

But, Claudia, I am not sure of the end point of this conversation which
seems to be wandering all over the place. Are we trying to come up with one
or more research questions in relation to the gender gap? If so, that needs
some constraining in terms of the time and resources available? What can be
done in 10 years with $10M and the full cooperation of WMF is very different
to what can be done over the weekend with no budget using existing public
data? Is the goal to put in a PEG grant?

Kerry
WereSpielChequers
2015-02-19 10:16:42 UTC
Permalink
Dear Claudia,

As I understand it the evidence for the Gendergap being real includes:

Usernames chosen by people creating accounts
Survey responses
Gender choices in user preferences
Attendees at events
Subject preferences among editors
In languages where you can't make talk page comments without disclosing your gender, the gender people disclose
Discussions amongst editors by email and other online methods
Applications for reference resources.

Some of these are more independent of each other than others, the last two are personal experience rather than anything statistically valid. But it is interesting when personal experience is in accord with research.

The only exceptions that I am aware of are where we deliberately target women such as through gender gap events, and I've heard that campus ambassadors are more gender balanced.

I don't dispute that there is a gender gap in the community, that the gender gap is greater amongst established editors than among newbies. As for other genders and whether we have put too much weight on the male/female ratio, it is a big glaring difference and when the debate about gender gap started several years ago now other ratios such as straight v gay didnt seem out of kilter. Since then there has been at least one mistake by ARBCOM and I suspect that the community isn't as Gay tolerant as I thought it was a few years back, so if someone is looking for a research topic it would be useful to know if the community's ratio of gay to straight members is changing over time.



Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> On 18 Feb 2015, at 11:23, ***@w4w.net wrote:
>
> Hi Jonathan Cardy and all, (see below for some software issues)
>
> I agree with your argument, WereSpielChequers/ Jonathan Cardy, and I would
> like to hear more details about
>> many pieces of evidence
> since these, I am told, usually form a good basis for hypotheses that might
> be used in qualitative studies. It seems to me that my attempt at starting
> thought experiment I quote a few lines from here
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015-
> February/004188.html
> might have produced similar data; or might be restarted in a different
> setting, maybe
>
> btw, my apologies, and thank you for your clarification. Actually, I did not
> intend to quote the statement in any personal attribution kind of way, but for
> a reversal experiment of the wording.
> I was assembling a few bits and pieces from different parts of different
> threads, and this was my way of making sure people would find the context
> again if they chose to; next time, I will try to look for a different method of
> presenting material for any language games.
>
> re "the Wikipedia community" I'd say that since it constitutes itself in adhoc
> teams, every user is a member, even if only for one edit or just by adding a fe
> pages to a watchlist after registration -- irrespective of the number of
> accounts the person behind a login name might be using to join the game
> board Wikipedia. From my point of view, there simply is a large variety in
> how people use any of the functions (or a combination of them) that the
> software of the platform offers -- and any and all use cases contribute to what
> makes the Wikipedia community. I do not have any romantic inclinations
> here. If it is an open system it is an open system for all use cases and their
> inventors, be they acting adhoc way or in a kind of more systematic gaming -
> - that one might have to regard as systemic after all.
>
> so if mediawiki enables users to behave like bullies, my question would be:
> does anyone have any insights as to the chances of changing the software to
> make Wikipedia a less welcoming place to users behaving like bullies?
> or would most experts currently say that mediawiki software does not have
> anything to do with it ;-) ?
>
> best,
> Claudia
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:WereSpielChequers <***@gmail.com>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:52:10 +0000
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
>> My comment "It could even test the theory that the
>> community is more abrasive towards women. We know
>> that we are less successful at recruiting female
>> editors than male ones, I'm not sure if we have
>> tested whether we are more successful at retaining
>> established male editors than female ones, and if
>> so whether we are losing women because they are
>> lured away or driven away." Seems to have been
>> shortened to me saying that "the community is more
>> abrasive towards women". Before people continue
>> using that quotation and attributing it to me, may
>> I point out that I regard it as an interesting
>> theory worth researching, not as a proven
>> statement. I don't doubt that we have a massively
>> male skew in the community, I have seen too many
>> pieces of evidence that all point that way to
>> doubt that. I am also fairly sure that women, and
>> I'd add gays are more likely to be attacked by
>> trolls and others from outside what I regard as
>> the wikipedia community than straight white men
>> like myself. But I don't know if the community is
>> more abrasive to women or in what way it is, and I
>> would be interested to see more research done in
>> that area.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Jonathan Cardy
>>
>>> On 17 Feb 2015, at 08:00, Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Claudial,
>>> I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable.
>>> Jane
>>>
>>> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
>>> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
>>>
>>> I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the conclusion
> was "the community can be perceived to be abrasive" and this conclusion, in
> yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should be rephrased as
> "the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women than by men"
>>>
>>> ____Kerry wrote:
>>> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in
> this
>>> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring
> the
>>> progress against that target, one has to question the point of
> establishing a
>>> target."
>>>
>>> ___Claudia (responding to Kerry):
>>> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
>>> measuring the progress...
>>> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might add,
> in
>>> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
> does
>>> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
>>>
>>> I think here you are forgetting about the "holy shit graph" which shows a
> reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of a
> direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been stated
> before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage. Oddly, I
> think it is one of the easiest of all "participatory gaps" to measure, but we
> seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that previous editor
> surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of never actually
> being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we have not yet been
> able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing apples to oranges.
>>>
>>> ____Aaron wrote:
>>> "higher quality survey data"
>>> __Claudia (responding to Aaron): ...how does one recognize low
> quality..?
>>> Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the criticism of the various editor
> surveys. Is this stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift through
> reams of emails until we find all the various objections? Objections galore, as
> I recall.
>>>
>>> ___Claudia: which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
>>> Off the top of my head, some of these would be
>>>
>>> 1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as active editors in rural
> areas or even in whole states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the
> whole "Global South participation problem" (the Global South participation
> problem is even helped along inadvertently by the new read-only "Wikipedia-
> zero" effect);
>>> 2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that technically don't lend
> themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical
> production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to make movies, how to
> choreograph motion)
>>> 3) lack of topical expertise on subjects that legally don't lend themselves
> well to the Wikiverse, such as articles about artworks under copyright that
> cannot be illustrated in an article;
>>> 4) lack of topical editor coverage on subjects previously shut out - there
> is still unwillingness by a whole group to re-enter the Wikiverse after being
> banned (earlier shut-outs such as blocking whole institution-wide ip ranges
> for vandalism or whole areas of expertise such as groups of writers for their
> COI editing, carry with them a history of anti-Wikipedia sentiment that lasts a
> long time in various enclaves)
>>>
>>> ___Claudia:
>>> and, again, in which language version(s)?
>>> That's easy - the languages that we can technically support but don't yet
> have Wikipedias for and the languages for which we don't even have the
> fonts to display them.
>>>
>>> best,
>>> Claudia
>>>
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:41 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>>> Hi WereSpielChequers, Kerry, Aaron and all,
>>>>
>>>> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
>>>> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
>>>>
>>>> this may be stats expert discourse, but let me show you how the
> question
>>>> itself has a gendered slant.
>>>> imagine what would happen - also in your research design - if it read:
> "the
>>>> community is less abrasive towards men" - how does this compare to
> the
>>>> first question re who are "the community"?
>>>>
>>>> and again, re phasing ten years in 2011 and four years on, which
> language
>>>> version(s) are hypotheses based on?
>>>>
>>>> ____Kerry wrote:
>>>> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in
> this
>>>> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring
> the
>>>> progress against that target, one has to question the point of
> establishing a
>>>> target."
>>>>
>>>> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
>>>> measuring the progress...
>>>> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
> add, in
>>>> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
> does
>>>> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
>>>>
>>>> ____Aaron wrote:
>>>> "higher quality survey data"
>>>> well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so
> low?
>>>> and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards?
>>>>
>>>> "causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related
>>>> participation gaps)"
>>>> which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
>>>> where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of participation?
>>>> and, again, in which language version(s)?
>>>>
>>>> best,
>>>> Claudia
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>> From:aaron shaw <***@northwestern.edu>
>>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>>>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:50:17 -0800
>>>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
>>>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>>
>>>>> Hi all!
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks, Jeremy & Dariusz for following up.
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Dariusz
>>>>> Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> As far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
>>>>>> publication coming up?
>>>>>
>>>>> Sadly, no follow ups at the moment.
>>>>>
>>>>> If we want to have a more precise sense of the
>>>>> demographics of participants the biggest need in
>>>>> this space is simply higher quality survey data.
>>>>> My paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why
>>>>> the 2008 editor survey (and all subsequent editor
>>>>> surveys, to my knowledge) has some profound limitations.
>>>>>
>>>>> The identification and estimation of the effects
>>>>> of particular causes and mechanisms that drive the
>>>>> gender gap (and related participation gaps)
>>>>> presents an even tougher challenge for
>>>>> researchers and is an area of active inquiry.
>>>>>
>>>>> all the best,
>>>>> Aaron
>>>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-19 12:21:48 UTC
Permalink
this is interesting for me, thank you very much, Jonathan Cardy

a few thoughts:

> But it
> is interesting when personal experience is in
> accord with research.

for me it usually turns out to be much more challenging when personal
experience is NOT in accord with research ;-)

> Subject preferences among editors

which hypotheses lies behind this assumption of relevance:
that boys prefer to write about boys? ;-)
and non-boys, too?

if yes, where do we get to on such a basis?
and is this really the place we want research to be in (that regularly claims to
be objective in any way)?

> Applications for reference resources

hm, quantity and/or topic-wise?

> if someone is looking for a
> research topic it would be useful to know if the
> community's ratio of gay to straight members is
> changing over time.

ah, in which culture?
why only gay to straight if, e.g., bisexuality and intersex* arae likely to be
considered even bigger taboos?
and anyway, which shades of "gay" and "straight"?

generally speaking, I would claim that any identity which can at times remain
invisible is probably based on a culture of remaining unidentifiable and
'invisible'.
so here we can profitably restart a debate on the question if researchers who
have no personal experience in terms of a culture that has for centuries been
based on hiding successfully to anyone except the likeminded/bodied should
receive any payment for studying a minority culture they do not belong to
themselves...

coming to I think of it, maybe it wold help us do away with binaries if anyone
could look into the culture of expressing -- or not expressing any -- "identity"

maybe we should ask queer theory specialists how they would advise
Wikimedians to do studies for which any identitarian glasses need to be
taken off in the first place,

to boot, I really think we should open a discussion on bias in research
questions (and then continue with a debate on bias in research design,
maybe, or the other way round)

btw, I agree with this idea:

"The Master's Tools Wil Never Dismantle the Master's House."
(Audre Lorde, 1979)

so where would anyone go from here for statistical or any for other
(non)gender-related research re the portion of the Wikipedia community that
is active on enWP?

best,
Claudia

---------- Original Message -----------
From:WereSpielChequers <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:16:42 +0000
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Dear Claudia,
>
> As I understand it the evidence for the Gendergap
> being real includes:
>
> Usernames chosen by people creating accounts
> Survey responses
> Gender choices in user preferences
> Attendees at events
> Subject preferences among editors
> In languages where you can't make talk page
> comments without disclosing your gender, the
> gender people disclose Discussions amongst editors
> by email and other online methods Applications for
> reference resources.
>
> Some of these are more independent of each other
> than others, the last two are personal experience
> rather than anything statistically valid. But it
> is interesting when personal experience is in
> accord with research.
>
> The only exceptions that I am aware of are where
> we deliberately target women such as through
> gender gap events, and I've heard that campus
> ambassadors are more gender balanced.
>
> I don't dispute that there is a gender gap in the
> community, that the gender gap is greater amongst
> established editors than among newbies. As for
> other genders and whether we have put too much
> weight on the male/female ratio, it is a big
> glaring difference and when the debate about
> gender gap started several years ago now other
> ratios such as straight v gay didnt seem out of
> kilter. Since then there has been at least one
> mistake by ARBCOM and I suspect that the community
> isn't as Gay tolerant as I thought it was a few
> years back, so if someone is looking for a
> research topic it would be useful to know if the
> community's ratio of gay to straight members is
> changing over time.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Cardy
>
> > On 18 Feb 2015, at 11:23, ***@w4w.net wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jonathan Cardy and all, (see below for some software issues)
> >
> > I agree with your argument, WereSpielChequers/ Jonathan Cardy, and I
would
> > like to hear more details about
> >> many pieces of evidence
> > since these, I am told, usually form a good basis for hypotheses that
might
> > be used in qualitative studies. It seems to me that my attempt at
starting
> > thought experiment I quote a few lines from here
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015-
> > February/004188.html
> > might have produced similar data; or might be restarted in a different
> > setting, maybe
> >
> > btw, my apologies, and thank you for your clarification. Actually, I did not
> > intend to quote the statement in any personal attribution kind of way,
but for
> > a reversal experiment of the wording.
> > I was assembling a few bits and pieces from different parts of different
> > threads, and this was my way of making sure people would find the
context
> > again if they chose to; next time, I will try to look for a different method
of
> > presenting material for any language games.
> >
> > re "the Wikipedia community" I'd say that since it constitutes itself in
adhoc
> > teams, every user is a member, even if only for one edit or just by adding
a fe
> > pages to a watchlist after registration -- irrespective of the number of
> > accounts the person behind a login name might be using to join the
game
> > board Wikipedia. From my point of view, there simply is a large variety in
> > how people use any of the functions (or a combination of them) that the
> > software of the platform offers -- and any and all use cases contribute to
what
> > makes the Wikipedia community. I do not have any romantic inclinations
> > here. If it is an open system it is an open system for all use cases and
their
> > inventors, be they acting adhoc way or in a kind of more systematic
gaming -
> > - that one might have to regard as systemic after all.
> >
> > so if mediawiki enables users to behave like bullies, my question would
be:
> > does anyone have any insights as to the chances of changing the
software to
> > make Wikipedia a less welcoming place to users behaving like bullies?
> > or would most experts currently say that mediawiki software does not
have
> > anything to do with it ;-) ?
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From:WereSpielChequers <***@gmail.com>
> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:52:10 +0000
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> >> My comment "It could even test the theory that the
> >> community is more abrasive towards women. We know
> >> that we are less successful at recruiting female
> >> editors than male ones, I'm not sure if we have
> >> tested whether we are more successful at retaining
> >> established male editors than female ones, and if
> >> so whether we are losing women because they are
> >> lured away or driven away." Seems to have been
> >> shortened to me saying that "the community is more
> >> abrasive towards women". Before people continue
> >> using that quotation and attributing it to me, may
> >> I point out that I regard it as an interesting
> >> theory worth researching, not as a proven
> >> statement. I don't doubt that we have a massively
> >> male skew in the community, I have seen too many
> >> pieces of evidence that all point that way to
> >> doubt that. I am also fairly sure that women, and
> >> I'd add gays are more likely to be attacked by
> >> trolls and others from outside what I regard as
> >> the wikipedia community than straight white men
> >> like myself. But I don't know if the community is
> >> more abrasive to women or in what way it is, and I
> >> would be interested to see more research done in
> >> that area.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Jonathan Cardy
> >>
> >>> On 17 Feb 2015, at 08:00, Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Claudial,
> >>> I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable.
> >>> Jane
> >>>
> >>> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
> >>> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
> >>>
> >>> I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the
conclusion
> > was "the community can be perceived to be abrasive" and this
conclusion, in
> > yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should be rephrased
as
> > "the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women than by
men"
> >>>
> >>> ____Kerry wrote:
> >>> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women
in
> > this
> >>> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring
> > the
> >>> progress against that target, one has to question the point of
> > establishing a
> >>> target."
> >>>
> >>> ___Claudia (responding to Kerry):
> >>> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means
of
> >>> measuring the progress...
> >>> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
add,
> > in
> >>> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this
organisation
> > does
> >>> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
> >>>
> >>> I think here you are forgetting about the "holy shit graph" which
shows a
> > reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of
a
> > direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been
stated
> > before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage. Oddly, I
> > think it is one of the easiest of all "participatory gaps" to measure, but
we
> > seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that previous
editor
> > surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of never
actually
> > being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we have not yet
been
> > able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing apples to
oranges.
> >>>
> >>> ____Aaron wrote:
> >>> "higher quality survey data"
> >>> __Claudia (responding to Aaron): ...how does one recognize low
> > quality..?
> >>> Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the criticism of the various
editor
> > surveys. Is this stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift
through
> > reams of emails until we find all the various objections? Objections
galore, as
> > I recall.
> >>>
> >>> ___Claudia: which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind
here?
> >>> Off the top of my head, some of these would be
> >>>
> >>> 1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as active editors in rural
> > areas or even in whole states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the
> > whole "Global South participation problem" (the Global South
participation
> > problem is even helped along inadvertently by the new read-only
"Wikipedia-
> > zero" effect);
> >>> 2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that technically don't lend
> > themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical
> > production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to make movies, how to
> > choreograph motion)
> >>> 3) lack of topical expertise on subjects that legally don't lend
themselves
> > well to the Wikiverse, such as articles about artworks under copyright
that
> > cannot be illustrated in an article;
> >>> 4) lack of topical editor coverage on subjects previously shut out -
there
> > is still unwillingness by a whole group to re-enter the Wikiverse after
being
> > banned (earlier shut-outs such as blocking whole institution-wide ip
ranges
> > for vandalism or whole areas of expertise such as groups of writers for
their
> > COI editing, carry with them a history of anti-Wikipedia sentiment that
lasts a
> > long time in various enclaves)
> >>>
> >>> ___Claudia:
> >>> and, again, in which language version(s)?
> >>> That's easy - the languages that we can technically support but don't
yet
> > have Wikipedias for and the languages for which we don't even have the
> > fonts to display them.
> >>>
> >>> best,
> >>> Claudia
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:41 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >>>> Hi WereSpielChequers, Kerry, Aaron and all,
> >>>>
> >>>> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
> >>>> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
> >>>>
> >>>> this may be stats expert discourse, but let me show you how the
> > question
> >>>> itself has a gendered slant.
> >>>> imagine what would happen - also in your research design - if it
read:
> > "the
> >>>> community is less abrasive towards men" - how does this compare
to
> > the
> >>>> first question re who are "the community"?
> >>>>
> >>>> and again, re phasing ten years in 2011 and four years on, which
> > language
> >>>> version(s) are hypotheses based on?
> >>>>
> >>>> ____Kerry wrote:
> >>>> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women
in
> > this
> >>>> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of
measuring
> > the
> >>>> progress against that target, one has to question the point of
> > establishing a
> >>>> target."
> >>>>
> >>>> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means
of
> >>>> measuring the progress...
> >>>> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
> > add, in
> >>>> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this
organisation
> > does
> >>>> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
> >>>>
> >>>> ____Aaron wrote:
> >>>> "higher quality survey data"
> >>>> well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so
> > low?
> >>>> and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards?
> >>>>
> >>>> "causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related
> >>>> participation gaps)"
> >>>> which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
> >>>> where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of
participation?
> >>>> and, again, in which language version(s)?
> >>>>
> >>>> best,
> >>>> Claudia
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------- Original Message -----------
> >>>> From:aaron shaw <***@northwestern.edu>
> >>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
> >>>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>>> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:50:17 -0800
> >>>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
Fwd:
> >>>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi all!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks, Jeremy & Dariusz for following up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Dariusz
> >>>>> Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> As far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> >>>>>> publication coming up?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sadly, no follow ups at the moment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we want to have a more precise sense of the
> >>>>> demographics of participants the biggest need in
> >>>>> this space is simply higher quality survey data.
> >>>>> My paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why
> >>>>> the 2008 editor survey (and all subsequent editor
> >>>>> surveys, to my knowledge) has some profound limitations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The identification and estimation of the effects
> >>>>> of particular causes and mechanisms that drive the
> >>>>> gender gap (and related participation gaps)
> >>>>> presents an even tougher challenge for
> >>>>> researchers and is an area of active inquiry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> all the best,
> >>>>> Aaron
> >>>> ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-21 12:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Hi Jonathan Cardy, hi all,

I just found something that could enhance our exchange by naming a few
more factors than usually discussed on this list:

"In practice, the opportunities for realizing novel, unusual, or less fashionable
technological functions are often constrained by a variety of factors: rigid
habits, lack of imagination, technical obstacles, vested interests, economic
power relationships, social impediments, moral constraints, and the like."
Hans Radder, "Critical Philosophy of Technology: The Basic Issues", in: Social
Epistemology, Vol. 22, No. 1, January-March 2008, pp. 51-70, p. 59

* rigid habits
* lack of imagination
* technical obstacles
* vested interests
* economic power relationships
* social impediments
* moral constraints
* and the like

so, in line with the hegemonic culture on this list, what novel, unusual, or less
fashionable *technological functions* could be used to solve the power issues
that seem to keep up the gender gap?

best,
Claudia
***@w4w.net
Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
- mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard

---------- Original Message -----------
From:WereSpielChequers <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:16:42 +0000
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Dear Claudia,
>
> As I understand it the evidence for the Gendergap
> being real includes:
>
> Usernames chosen by people creating accounts
> Survey responses
> Gender choices in user preferences
> Attendees at events
> Subject preferences among editors
> In languages where you can't make talk page
> comments without disclosing your gender, the
> gender people disclose Discussions amongst editors
> by email and other online methods Applications for
> reference resources.
>
> Some of these are more independent of each other
> than others, the last two are personal experience
> rather than anything statistically valid. But it
> is interesting when personal experience is in
> accord with research.
>
> The only exceptions that I am aware of are where
> we deliberately target women such as through
> gender gap events, and I've heard that campus
> ambassadors are more gender balanced.
>
> I don't dispute that there is a gender gap in the
> community, that the gender gap is greater amongst
> established editors than among newbies. As for
> other genders and whether we have put too much
> weight on the male/female ratio, it is a big
> glaring difference and when the debate about
> gender gap started several years ago now other
> ratios such as straight v gay didnt seem out of
> kilter. Since then there has been at least one
> mistake by ARBCOM and I suspect that the community
> isn't as Gay tolerant as I thought it was a few
> years back, so if someone is looking for a
> research topic it would be useful to know if the
> community's ratio of gay to straight members is
> changing over time.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Cardy
>
> > On 18 Feb 2015, at 11:23, ***@w4w.net wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jonathan Cardy and all, (see below for some software issues)
> >
> > I agree with your argument, WereSpielChequers/ Jonathan Cardy, and I
would
> > like to hear more details about
> >> many pieces of evidence
> > since these, I am told, usually form a good basis for hypotheses that
might
> > be used in qualitative studies. It seems to me that my attempt at
starting
> > thought experiment I quote a few lines from here
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015-
> > February/004188.html
> > might have produced similar data; or might be restarted in a different
> > setting, maybe
> >
> > btw, my apologies, and thank you for your clarification. Actually, I did not
> > intend to quote the statement in any personal attribution kind of way,
but for
> > a reversal experiment of the wording.
> > I was assembling a few bits and pieces from different parts of different
> > threads, and this was my way of making sure people would find the
context
> > again if they chose to; next time, I will try to look for a different method
of
> > presenting material for any language games.
> >
> > re "the Wikipedia community" I'd say that since it constitutes itself in
adhoc
> > teams, every user is a member, even if only for one edit or just by adding
a fe
> > pages to a watchlist after registration -- irrespective of the number of
> > accounts the person behind a login name might be using to join the
game
> > board Wikipedia. From my point of view, there simply is a large variety in
> > how people use any of the functions (or a combination of them) that the
> > software of the platform offers -- and any and all use cases contribute to
what
> > makes the Wikipedia community. I do not have any romantic inclinations
> > here. If it is an open system it is an open system for all use cases and
their
> > inventors, be they acting adhoc way or in a kind of more systematic
gaming -
> > - that one might have to regard as systemic after all.
> >
> > so if mediawiki enables users to behave like bullies, my question would
be:
> > does anyone have any insights as to the chances of changing the
software to
> > make Wikipedia a less welcoming place to users behaving like bullies?
> > or would most experts currently say that mediawiki software does not
have
> > anything to do with it ;-) ?
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From:WereSpielChequers <***@gmail.com>
> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:52:10 +0000
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> >> My comment "It could even test the theory that the
> >> community is more abrasive towards women. We know
> >> that we are less successful at recruiting female
> >> editors than male ones, I'm not sure if we have
> >> tested whether we are more successful at retaining
> >> established male editors than female ones, and if
> >> so whether we are losing women because they are
> >> lured away or driven away." Seems to have been
> >> shortened to me saying that "the community is more
> >> abrasive towards women". Before people continue
> >> using that quotation and attributing it to me, may
> >> I point out that I regard it as an interesting
> >> theory worth researching, not as a proven
> >> statement. I don't doubt that we have a massively
> >> male skew in the community, I have seen too many
> >> pieces of evidence that all point that way to
> >> doubt that. I am also fairly sure that women, and
> >> I'd add gays are more likely to be attacked by
> >> trolls and others from outside what I regard as
> >> the wikipedia community than straight white men
> >> like myself. But I don't know if the community is
> >> more abrasive to women or in what way it is, and I
> >> would be interested to see more research done in
> >> that area.
> >>
> >> Regards
> >>
> >> Jonathan Cardy
> >>
> >>> On 17 Feb 2015, at 08:00, Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Claudial,
> >>> I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable.
> >>> Jane
> >>>
> >>> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
> >>> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
> >>>
> >>> I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the
conclusion
> > was "the community can be perceived to be abrasive" and this
conclusion, in
> > yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should be rephrased
as
> > "the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women than by
men"
> >>>
> >>> ____Kerry wrote:
> >>> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women
in
> > this
> >>> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring
> > the
> >>> progress against that target, one has to question the point of
> > establishing a
> >>> target."
> >>>
> >>> ___Claudia (responding to Kerry):
> >>> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means
of
> >>> measuring the progress...
> >>> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
add,
> > in
> >>> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this
organisation
> > does
> >>> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
> >>>
> >>> I think here you are forgetting about the "holy shit graph" which
shows a
> > reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of
a
> > direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been
stated
> > before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage. Oddly, I
> > think it is one of the easiest of all "participatory gaps" to measure, but
we
> > seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that previous
editor
> > surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of never
actually
> > being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we have not yet
been
> > able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing apples to
oranges.
> >>>
> >>> ____Aaron wrote:
> >>> "higher quality survey data"
> >>> __Claudia (responding to Aaron): ...how does one recognize low
> > quality..?
> >>> Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the criticism of the various
editor
> > surveys. Is this stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift
through
> > reams of emails until we find all the various objections? Objections
galore, as
> > I recall.
> >>>
> >>> ___Claudia: which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind
here?
> >>> Off the top of my head, some of these would be
> >>>
> >>> 1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as active editors in rural
> > areas or even in whole states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the
> > whole "Global South participation problem" (the Global South
participation
> > problem is even helped along inadvertently by the new read-only
"Wikipedia-
> > zero" effect);
> >>> 2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that technically don't lend
> > themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical
> > production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to make movies, how to
> > choreograph motion)
> >>> 3) lack of topical expertise on subjects that legally don't lend
themselves
> > well to the Wikiverse, such as articles about artworks under copyright
that
> > cannot be illustrated in an article;
> >>> 4) lack of topical editor coverage on subjects previously shut out -
there
> > is still unwillingness by a whole group to re-enter the Wikiverse after
being
> > banned (earlier shut-outs such as blocking whole institution-wide ip
ranges
> > for vandalism or whole areas of expertise such as groups of writers for
their
> > COI editing, carry with them a history of anti-Wikipedia sentiment that
lasts a
> > long time in various enclaves)
> >>>
> >>> ___Claudia:
> >>> and, again, in which language version(s)?
> >>> That's easy - the languages that we can technically support but don't
yet
> > have Wikipedias for and the languages for which we don't even have the
> > fonts to display them.
> >>>
> >>> best,
> >>> Claudia
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:41 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >>>> Hi WereSpielChequers, Kerry, Aaron and all,
> >>>>
> >>>> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
> >>>> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
> >>>>
> >>>> this may be stats expert discourse, but let me show you how the
> > question
> >>>> itself has a gendered slant.
> >>>> imagine what would happen - also in your research design - if it
read:
> > "the
> >>>> community is less abrasive towards men" - how does this compare
to
> > the
> >>>> first question re who are "the community"?
> >>>>
> >>>> and again, re phasing ten years in 2011 and four years on, which
> > language
> >>>> version(s) are hypotheses based on?
> >>>>
> >>>> ____Kerry wrote:
> >>>> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women
in
> > this
> >>>> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of
measuring
> > the
> >>>> progress against that target, one has to question the point of
> > establishing a
> >>>> target."
> >>>>
> >>>> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means
of
> >>>> measuring the progress...
> >>>> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
> > add, in
> >>>> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this
organisation
> > does
> >>>> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
> >>>>
> >>>> ____Aaron wrote:
> >>>> "higher quality survey data"
> >>>> well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so
> > low?
> >>>> and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards?
> >>>>
> >>>> "causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related
> >>>> participation gaps)"
> >>>> which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
> >>>> where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of
participation?
> >>>> and, again, in which language version(s)?
> >>>>
> >>>> best,
> >>>> Claudia
> >>>>
> >>>> ---------- Original Message -----------
> >>>> From:aaron shaw <***@northwestern.edu>
> >>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
> >>>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>>> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:50:17 -0800
> >>>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
Fwd:
> >>>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>>>
> >>>>> Hi all!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Thanks, Jeremy & Dariusz for following up.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Dariusz
> >>>>> Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> As far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> >>>>>> publication coming up?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Sadly, no follow ups at the moment.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If we want to have a more precise sense of the
> >>>>> demographics of participants the biggest need in
> >>>>> this space is simply higher quality survey data.
> >>>>> My paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why
> >>>>> the 2008 editor survey (and all subsequent editor
> >>>>> surveys, to my knowledge) has some profound limitations.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The identification and estimation of the effects
> >>>>> of particular causes and mechanisms that drive the
> >>>>> gender gap (and related participation gaps)
> >>>>> presents an even tougher challenge for
> >>>>> researchers and is an area of active inquiry.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> all the best,
> >>>>> Aaron
> >>>> ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
Aaron Halfaker
2015-02-21 16:30:38 UTC
Permalink
Re. challenging problematic ideologies that get wrapped up into
technological decisions in Wikipedia, I've done some relevant work. See:

Halfaker, A., Geiger, R. S., & Terveen, L. G. (2014, April). Snuggle:
Designing for efficient socialization and ideological critique. In *Proceedings
of the 32nd annual ACM conference on Human factors in computing systems* (pp.
311-320). ACM.
http://www-users.cs.umn.edu/~halfak/publications/Snuggle/halfaker14snuggle-preprint.pdf

See http://snuggle-en.wmflabs.org/ for the live system.

For upcoming projects, I'm excited about http://passingon.natematias.com/

-Aaron
Kerry Raymond
2015-02-19 00:17:47 UTC
Permalink
I don't think it's necessarily a question of "is the community more abrasive
towards women?". Apart from specific pockets of misogyny that seem to have
been the catalyst for some of the recent ArbCom matters, I don't think it's
likely to be the case in general. I expect the community is probably equally
abrasive to men and women. The better question is "do women want to be in an
abrasive environment?". I think the answer to that is "mostly not".
Analysis of women's interactions usually shows a strong tendency towards
consensus building. This is very different to the Bold-Revert-Discuss
culture of Wikipedia. Women are much more like to Discuss-Discuss-Discuss.



Kerry





_____

From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of
WereSpielChequers
Sent: Wednesday, 18 February 2015 6:52 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
Fwd:[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers



My comment "It could even test the theory that the community is more
abrasive towards women. We know that we are less successful at recruiting
female editors than male ones, I'm not sure if we have tested whether we are
more successful at retaining established male editors than female ones, and
if so whether we are losing women because they are lured away or driven
away." Seems to have been shortened to me saying that "the community is more
abrasive towards women". Before people continue using that quotation and
attributing it to me, may I point out that I regard it as an interesting
theory worth researching, not as a proven statement. I don't doubt that we
have a massively male skew in the community, I have seen too many pieces of
evidence that all point that way to doubt that. I am also fairly sure that
women, and I'd add gays are more likely to be attacked by trolls and others
from outside what I regard as the wikipedia community than straight white
men like myself. But I don't know if the community is more abrasive to women
or in what way it is, and I would be interested to see more research done in
that area.

Regards



Jonathan Cardy




On 17 Feb 2015, at 08:00, Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi Claudial,

I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable.

Jane



____WereSpielChequers wrote:

"the community is more abrasive towards women"



I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the conclusion
was "the community can be perceived to be abrasive" and this conclusion, in
yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should be rephrased as
"the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women than by men"



____Kerry wrote:

"But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this

particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the

progress against that target, one has to question the point of establishing
a

target."



___Claudia (responding to Kerry):

I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of

measuring the progress...

and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might add,
in

speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
does

not fund any top level research... - or does it?



I think here you are forgetting about the "holy shit graph" which shows a
reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of a
direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been stated
before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage. Oddly, I
think it is one of the easiest of all "participatory gaps" to measure, but
we seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that previous
editor surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of never
actually being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we have not
yet been able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing apples to
oranges.



____Aaron wrote:

"higher quality survey data"

__Claudia (responding to Aaron): ...how does one recognize low quality..?

Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the criticism of the various editor
surveys. Is this stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift through
reams of emails until we find all the various objections? Objections galore,
as I recall.



___Claudia: which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?

Off the top of my head, some of these would be



1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as active editors in rural
areas or even in whole states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the whole
"Global South participation problem" (the Global South participation problem
is even helped along inadvertently by the new read-only "Wikipedia-zero"
effect);

2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that technically don't lend
themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical
production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to make movies, how to
choreograph motion)

3) lack of topical expertise on subjects that legally don't lend themselves
well to the Wikiverse, such as articles about artworks under copyright that
cannot be illustrated in an article;

4) lack of topical editor coverage on subjects previously shut out - there
is still unwillingness by a whole group to re-enter the Wikiverse after
being banned (earlier shut-outs such as blocking whole institution-wide ip
ranges for vandalism or whole areas of expertise such as groups of writers
for their COI editing, carry with them a history of anti-Wikipedia sentiment
that lasts a long time in various enclaves)



___Claudia:

and, again, in which language version(s)?

That's easy - the languages that we can technically support but don't yet
have Wikipedias for and the languages for which we don't even have the fonts
to display them.



best,

Claudia





On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:41 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:

Hi WereSpielChequers, Kerry, Aaron and all,

____WereSpielChequers wrote:
"the community is more abrasive towards women"

this may be stats expert discourse, but let me show you how the question
itself has a gendered slant.
imagine what would happen - also in your research design - if it read: "the
community is less abrasive towards men" - how does this compare to the
first question re who are "the community"?

and again, re phasing ten years in 2011 and four years on, which language
version(s) are hypotheses based on?

____Kerry wrote:
"But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this
particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
progress against that target, one has to question the point of establishing
a
target."

I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
measuring the progress...
and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might add,
in
speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
does
not fund any top level research... - or does it?

____Aaron wrote:
"higher quality survey data"
well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so low?
and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards?

"causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related
participation gaps)"
which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of participation?
and, again, in which language version(s)?

best,
Claudia

---------- Original Message -----------
From:aaron shaw <***@northwestern.edu>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:50:17 -0800
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hi all!
>
> Thanks, Jeremy & Dariusz for following up.
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Dariusz
> Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
>
> > As far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> > publication coming up?
>
> Sadly, no follow ups at the moment.
>
> If we want to have a more precise sense of the
> demographics of participants the biggest need in
> this space is simply higher quality survey data.
> My paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why
> the 2008 editor survey (and all subsequent editor
> surveys, to my knowledge) has some profound limitations.
>
> The identification and estimation of the effects
> of particular causes and mechanisms that drive the
> gender gap (and related participation gaps)
> presents an even tougher challenge for
> researchers and is an area of active inquiry.
>
> all the best,
> Aaron
------- End of Original Message -------
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-19 05:14:44 UTC
Permalink
thanks, Kerry,

yet, if Wikipedia community culture in the English language version is
dominated by a large majority of male users, it seems likely that only this
user group that could drive any change.

instead of asking: “do women want to be in an abrasive environment?”

we might therefore be better off asking: “do men want to be in an abrasive
environment?”

or, “do the majority of Wikipedia Community members want to be in an
abrasive environment?”

or “who among Wikipedia Community members wants to be in an abrasive
environment to the extent that all is done to keep it up?”

or, maybe: “who wants Wikipedia to be an abrasive environment to the
extent that to little is done to effectively put an end to the tendency that
knowledgeable editors and peace-loving collegues are driven away?”

best,
Claudia
***@w4w.net
Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
- mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard

---------- Original Message -----------
From:"Kerry Raymond" <***@gmail.com>
To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:17:47 +1000
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> I don't think it's necessarily a question of "is
> the community more abrasive towards women?". Apart
> from specific pockets of misogyny that seem to
> have been the catalyst for some of the recent
> ArbCom matters, I don't think it's likely to be
> the case in general. I expect the community is
> probably equally abrasive to men and women. The
> better question is "do women want to be in an
> abrasive environment?". I think the answer to that
> is "mostly not". Analysis of women's interactions
> usually shows a strong tendency towards consensus
> building. This is very different to the Bold-
> Revert-Discuss culture of Wikipedia. Women are
> much more like to Discuss-Discuss-Discuss.
>
> Kerry
>
> _____
>
> From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wiki-research-l-
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of WereSpielChequers
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 February 2015 6:52 AM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
> gender stats Re: Fwd:[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
> My comment "It could even test the theory that the
> community is more abrasive towards women. We know
> that we are less successful at recruiting female
> editors than male ones, I'm not sure if we have
> tested whether we are more successful at retaining
> established male editors than female ones, and if
> so whether we are losing women because they are
> lured away or driven away." Seems to have been
> shortened to me saying that "the community is more
> abrasive towards women". Before people continue
> using that quotation and attributing it to me, may
> I point out that I regard it as an interesting
> theory worth researching, not as a proven
> statement. I don't doubt that we have a massively
> male skew in the community, I have seen too many
> pieces of evidence that all point that way to
> doubt that. I am also fairly sure that women, and
> I'd add gays are more likely to be attacked by
> trolls and others from outside what I regard as
> the wikipedia community than straight white men
> like myself. But I don't know if the community is
> more abrasive to women or in what way it is, and I
> would be interested to see more research done in
> that area.
>
> Regards
>
> Jonathan Cardy
>
> On 17 Feb 2015, at 08:00, Jane Darnell
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Claudial,
>
> I responded to your questions in the text - hope
> it's readable.
>
> Jane
>
> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
>
> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
>
> I think he is simply referring to earlier
> discussions where the conclusion was "the
> community can be perceived to be abrasive" and
> this conclusion, in yet other discussions led to
> this conclusion, which should be rephrased as "the
> community is more often perceived as abrasive by
> women than by men"
>
> ____Kerry wrote:
>
> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a
> target (25% women in this
>
> particular case) and then does not put in place a
> means of measuring the
>
> progress against that target, one has to question
> the point of establishing a
>
> target."
>
> ___Claudia (responding to Kerry):
>
> I think one has to question the point of not
> putting in place a means of
>
> measuring the progress...
>
> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority
> (allegedly, one might add, in
>
> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the
> press...) this organisation does
>
> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
>
> I think here you are forgetting about the "holy
> shit graph" which shows a reduction in the number
> of active editors over time. This is much more of
> a direct threat to the Wikiverse than the
> gendergap, which, as has been stated before, is
> only one of many serious gaps in knowledge
> coverage. Oddly, I think it is one of the easiest
> of all "participatory gaps" to measure, but we
> seem to constantly get stranded in objections to
> ways that previous editor surveys have been held,
> leading to the strange situation of never
> actually being able to run even one editor survey
> twice. Since we have not yet been able to
> establish any trend at all, we are only comparing
> apples to oranges.
>
> ____Aaron wrote:
>
> "higher quality survey data"
>
> __Claudia (responding to Aaron): ...how does one
> recognize low quality..?
>
> Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the
> criticism of the various editor surveys. Is this
> stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift through
> reams of emails until we find all the various
> objections? Objections galore, as I recall.
>
> ___Claudia: which "related participation gaps" do
> you have in mind here?
>
> Off the top of my head, some of these would be
>
> 1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as
> active editors in rural areas or even in whole
> states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the
> whole "Global South participation problem" (the
> Global South participation problem is even helped
> along inadvertently by the new read-only
> "Wikipedia-zero" effect);
>
> 2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that
> technically don't lend themselves well to the
> Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical
> production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to
> make movies, how to choreograph motion)
>
> 3) lack of topical expertise on subjects that
> legally don't lend themselves well to the
> Wikiverse, such as articles about artworks under
> copyright that cannot be illustrated in an article;
>
> 4) lack of topical editor coverage on subjects
> previously shut out - there is still unwillingness
> by a whole group to re-enter the Wikiverse after
> being banned (earlier shut-outs such as blocking
> whole institution-wide ip ranges for vandalism or
> whole areas of expertise such as groups of writers
> for their COI editing, carry with them a history
> of anti-Wikipedia sentiment that lasts a long time
> in various enclaves)
>
> ___Claudia:
>
> and, again, in which language version(s)?
>
> That's easy - the languages that we can
> technically support but don't yet have Wikipedias
> for and the languages for which we don't even have
> the fonts to display them.
>
> best,
>
> Claudia
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:41 AM,
> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>
> Hi WereSpielChequers, Kerry, Aaron and all,
>
> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
>
> this may be stats expert discourse, but let me
> show you how the question itself has a gendered slant.
> imagine what would happen - also in your research
> design - if it read: "the community is less
> abrasive towards men" - how does this compare to
> the first question re who are "the community"?
>
> and again, re phasing ten years in 2011 and four
> years on, which language version(s) are hypotheses
> based on?
>
> ____Kerry wrote:
> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a
> target (25% women in this particular case) and
> then does not put in place a means of measuring
> the progress against that target, one has to
> question the point of establishing a target."
>
> I think one has to question the point of not
> putting in place a means of measuring the progress...
> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority
> (allegedly, one might add, in speeches at meetings,
> in interviews with the press...) this
> organisation does not fund any top level
> research... - or does it?
>
> ____Aaron wrote:
> "higher quality survey data"
> well, and how does one recognize low quality and
> how come it is so low? and "quality" by whose
> epistemological aims and standards?
>
> "causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap
> (and related participation gaps)" which "related
> participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
> where would these gaps be situated in terms of
> areas of participation? and, again, in which
> language version(s)?
>
> best,
> Claudia
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:aaron shaw <***@northwestern.edu>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> <wiki-research- ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:50:17 -0800 Subject:Re:
> [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats
> Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
> > Hi all!
> >
> > Thanks, Jeremy & Dariusz for following up.
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Dariusz
> > Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> >
> > > As far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> > > publication coming up?
> >
> > Sadly, no follow ups at the moment.
> >
> > If we want to have a more precise sense of the
> > demographics of participants the biggest need in
> > this space is simply higher quality survey data.
> > My paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why
> > the 2008 editor survey (and all subsequent editor
> > surveys, to my knowledge) has some profound limitations.
> >
> > The identification and estimation of the effects
> > of particular causes and mechanisms that drive the
> > gender gap (and related participation gaps)
> > presents an even tougher challenge for
> > researchers and is an area of active inquiry.
> >
> > all the best,
> > Aaron
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
aaron shaw
2015-02-17 16:23:42 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:41 PM, ***@w4w.net <***@w4w.net>
wrote:

> ____Aaron wrote:
> "higher quality survey data"
> well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so low?
> and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards?
>
> "causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related
> participation gaps)"
> which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
>

Jane's response was helpful and similar to mine.

Based on existing surveys, there are demographic and social categories of
people who are underrepresented among current editors. I don't have
specifics off the top of my head, but if you look at WMF survey results for
US editors and compare the findings to US census data (for example), you
can get an idea of some categories. Women are underrepresented to an
extreme degree, but they are not the only population that does not seem to
edit en:WP. I am less knowledgeable about other WPs, but I suspect there
are other inequalities and gaps on other wikis.


> where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of participation?
>

See above.


> and, again, in which language version(s)?
>

See above.





On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> Speaking of which, the WMF doesn't have resources to appropriately
> process the 2012 survey data, so results aren't available yet. Did you
> consider offering them to take care of it, at least for the gendergap
> number? You would then be able to publish an update.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#Looking_for_survey_results



As before, my understanding is that the method by which respondents were
selected to participate in the survey does not meet standard methods of
survey sampling (see this chunk
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#When.2C_and_how_often_will_the_survey_be_conducted.3F>
of
the description of the survey). As a result, I do not trust the results of
the 2012 survey to generate precise estimates of the gender gap or other
demographic details about participation. I've spoken to some very receptive
folks at the foundation about this and I hope that they/we will be able to
improve it in the future. I'm eager to help improve the survey data
collection procedures. Unfortunately, I do not have the capacity to analyze
the current survey data in greater depth.

The thing that allowed Mako and I to do the study that we published in
PLOSONE was the fact that (1) the old UNU-Merit & WMF survey sought to
include readers as well as editors; *and* (2) at the exact same time Pew
carried out a survey in which they asked a nearly identical question about
readership. We used the overlapping results about WP readership from both
surveys to generate a correction for the data about editorship. Without
similar data on readership and similar data from a representative sample of
some reference population (in the case of the pew survey, US adults), we
cannot perform the same correction. As a result, I do not feel comfortable
estimating how biased (or unbiased) the 2012 survey results may be.


a

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Claudial,
> I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable.
> Jane
>
> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
>
> I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the
> conclusion was "the community can be perceived to be abrasive" and this
> conclusion, in yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should
> be rephrased as "the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women
> than by men"
>
> ____Kerry wrote:
> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this
> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
> progress against that target, one has to question the point of
> establishing a
> target."
>
> ___Claudia (responding to Kerry):
> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
> measuring the progress...
> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
> add, in
> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
> does
> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
>
> I think here you are forgetting about the "holy shit graph" which shows
> a reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of
> a direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been
> stated before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage.
> Oddly, I think it is one of the easiest of all "participatory gaps" to
> measure, but we seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that
> previous editor surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of
> never actually being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we
> have not yet been able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing
> apples to oranges.
>
> ____Aaron wrote:
> "higher quality survey data"
> __Claudia (responding to Aaron): ...how does one recognize low quality..?
> Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the criticism of the various editor
> surveys. Is this stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift through
> reams of emails until we find all the various objections? Objections
> galore, as I recall.
>
> ___Claudia: which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
> Off the top of my head, some of these would be
>
> 1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as active editors in rural
> areas or even in whole states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the whole
> "Global South participation problem" (the Global South participation
> problem is even helped along inadvertently by the new read-only
> "Wikipedia-zero" effect);
> 2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that technically don't lend
> themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical
> production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to make movies, how to
> choreograph motion)
> 3) lack of topical expertise on subjects that legally don't lend
> themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as articles about artworks under
> copyright that cannot be illustrated in an article;
> 4) lack of topical editor coverage on subjects previously shut out - there
> is still unwillingness by a whole group to re-enter the Wikiverse after
> being banned (earlier shut-outs such as blocking whole institution-wide ip
> ranges for vandalism or whole areas of expertise such as groups of writers
> for their COI editing, carry with them a history of anti-Wikipedia
> sentiment that lasts a long time in various enclaves)
>
> ___Claudia:
> and, again, in which language version(s)?
> That's easy - the languages that we can technically support but don't yet
> have Wikipedias for and the languages for which we don't even have the
> fonts to display them.
>
> best,
> Claudia
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:41 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>
>> Hi WereSpielChequers, Kerry, Aaron and all,
>>
>> ____WereSpielChequers wrote:
>> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
>>
>> this may be stats expert discourse, but let me show you how the question
>> itself has a gendered slant.
>> imagine what would happen - also in your research design - if it read:
>> "the
>> community is less abrasive towards men" - how does this compare to the
>> first question re who are "the community"?
>>
>> and again, re phasing ten years in 2011 and four years on, which language
>> version(s) are hypotheses based on?
>>
>> ____Kerry wrote:
>> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in
>> this
>> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
>> progress against that target, one has to question the point of
>> establishing a
>> target."
>>
>> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
>> measuring the progress...
>> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
>> add, in
>> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
>> does
>> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
>>
>> ____Aaron wrote:
>> "higher quality survey data"
>> well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so low?
>> and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards?
>>
>> "causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related
>> participation gaps)"
>> which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
>> where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of participation?
>> and, again, in which language version(s)?
>>
>> best,
>> Claudia
>>
>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> From:aaron shaw <***@northwestern.edu>
>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:50:17 -0800
>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>
>> > Hi all!
>> >
>> > Thanks, Jeremy & Dariusz for following up.
>> >
>> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Dariusz
>> > Jemielniak <***@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
>> >
>> > > As far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
>> > > publication coming up?
>> >
>> > Sadly, no follow ups at the moment.
>> >
>> > If we want to have a more precise sense of the
>> > demographics of participants the biggest need in
>> > this space is simply higher quality survey data.
>> > My paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why
>> > the 2008 editor survey (and all subsequent editor
>> > surveys, to my knowledge) has some profound limitations.
>> >
>> > The identification and estimation of the effects
>> > of particular causes and mechanisms that drive the
>> > gender gap (and related participation gaps)
>> > presents an even tougher challenge for
>> > researchers and is an area of active inquiry.
>> >
>> > all the best,
>> > Aaron
>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>
>
Tilman Bayer
2015-03-06 00:11:05 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:23 AM, aaron shaw <***@northwestern.edu>
wrote:

...
>


> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) <***@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> Speaking of which, the WMF doesn't have resources to appropriately
>> process the 2012 survey data, so results aren't available yet. Did you
>> consider offering them to take care of it, at least for the gendergap
>> number? You would then be able to publish an update.
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#Looking_for_survey_results
>
>
>
> As before, my understanding is that the method by which respondents were
> selected to participate in the survey does not meet standard methods of
> survey sampling (see this chunk
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#When.2C_and_how_often_will_the_survey_be_conducted.3F> of
> the description of the survey). As a result, I do not trust the results of
> the 2012 survey to generate precise estimates of the gender gap or other
> demographic details about participation.
>

To clarify, as this has since led to misunderstandings elsewhere: The 2012
editor survey used the same sampling method with the same limitations as
the April 2011 and November/December 2011 editor surveys. (By design, as
one of the main objectives was to gain comparable data and identify
trends.) And the 2008 UNU-MERIT survey that forms the basis of Aaron's and
Mako's paper essentially used the same method too - with the exception of
the aspects (1) and (2) Aaron described below, namely that it sampled both
readers and editors, and that there happened to be a comparable survey,
conducted by Pew around the same time, that could be assumed not to exhibit
the same type of participation bias.

Thanks to Aaron's and Mako's paper, the limitations of this method and the
fact that it likely leads to an underestimation of the female ratio among
Wikipedia editors are now better understood. But I'm not aware of research
that has used a fundamentally more reliable method to investigate
Wikipedia's gender gap; so for now such web-based volunteer surveys
continue to inform our awareness of the topic.

After Aaron's and Mako's research became available, I read the 2011 paper
which their correction method is based on (Valliant and Dever, "Estimating
propensity adjustments for volunteer web surveys"), and Aaron and I have
talked several times about the possibility of finding a weaker form of that
method that - by extrapolating some of the 2008 information - could be
applied to the 2012 survey despite the lack of comparison data (i.e. (1) &
(2)). But as he said below, we are not aware of a good option for doing
that.

I have myself been nudging some other people in the Foundation who were
preparing or considering more specialized user surveys to look at the
option of constructing them in a way that enables the use of Aaron's and
Mako's method, but it has to be said that the requirement to include a
reader sample (i.e. (1)) can come at a cost, and that the equivalent of
that Pew survey ((2)) might not be available in many of the countries that
one is interested in.


> I've spoken to some very receptive folks at the foundation about this and
> I hope that they/we will be able to improve it in the future. I'm eager to
> help improve the survey data collection procedures. Unfortunately, I do not
> have the capacity to analyze the current survey data in greater depth.
>
> The thing that allowed Mako and I to do the study that we published in
> PLOSONE was the fact that (1) the old UNU-Merit & WMF survey sought to
> include readers as well as editors; *and* (2) at the exact same time Pew
> carried out a survey in which they asked a nearly identical question about
> readership. We used the overlapping results about WP readership from both
> surveys to generate a correction for the data about editorship. Without
> similar data on readership and similar data from a representative sample of
> some reference population (in the case of the pew survey, US adults), we
> cannot perform the same correction. As a result, I do not feel comfortable
> estimating how biased (or unbiased) the 2012 survey results may be.
>
>
> a
>
>


On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Michael Restivo <***@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Wikipedia Signpost had a discussion of this question, including data on
> English Wikipedians' gender by edits:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-02-14/News_and_notes
>
Yes, but as I wrote in that Signpost article, that data relied on the
gender editors state in their user preferences and "this information is
optional and the majority of accounts do not state it". There a good
reasons to assume that the differing incentives distort that data even more
than the anonymous responses to banner-advertised surveys. For example, the
user has to be comfortable with stating their gender in public, and in several
languages
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_languages_with_grammatical_gender>
female
users have to set that user preference if they want the word "user" next to
their nick show up in female instead of male grammatical gender form (e.g.
"Benutzerin" vs. "Benutzer" in German) - male users do not have that
incentive.


--
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB
Frances Hocutt
2015-03-06 00:19:20 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Tilman Bayer <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:

>
> Yes, but as I wrote in that Signpost article, that data relied on the
> gender editors state in their user preferences and "this information is
> optional and the majority of accounts do not state it". There a good
> reasons to assume that the differing incentives distort that data even more
> than the anonymous responses to banner-advertised surveys. For example, the
> user has to be comfortable with stating their gender in public, and in several
> languages
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_languages_with_grammatical_gender> female
> users have to set that user preference if they want the word "user" next to
> their nick show up in female instead of male grammatical gender form (e.g.
> "Benutzerin" vs. "Benutzer" in German) - male users do not have that
> incentive.
>

One change that could address the latter incentive is to change the
defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical gender is not the
default for new users. It could be randomly assigned, and then some men as
well as some women would have the incentive to set their gender preferences.

-Frances
Mark J. Nelson
2015-03-06 00:30:58 UTC
Permalink
Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:

> One change that could address the latter incentive is to change the
> defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical gender is not the
> default for new users. It could be randomly assigned, and then some men as
> well as some women would have the incentive to set their gender preferences.

That's how it currently works, according to the manual, with the default
gender set to 'unknown':
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions

I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in effect on
Wikimedia's own wikis, though.

-Mark

--
Mark J. Nelson
http://www.kmjn.org
Frances Hocutt
2015-03-06 00:43:04 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson <***@anadrome.org> wrote:

>
> Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
>
> > One change that could address the latter incentive is to change the
> > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical gender is not the
> > default for new users. It could be randomly assigned, and then some men
> as
> > well as some women would have the incentive to set their gender
> preferences.
>
> That's how it currently works, according to the manual, with the default
> gender set to 'unknown':
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
>
> I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in effect on
> Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
>

I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My understanding--and please
correct me if I'm wrong--is that an "unknown" user in a language where
personal nouns are gendered will always display the masculine form (i.e.
Usuario for a user of unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
need to change his gender in preferences in order to be described
accurately where a female user would need to set her gender in order to be
described as "Usuaria". Hence, different incentives, and ones that could be
addressed with different default behavior for an "unknown" user.

-Frances
k***@w4w.net
2015-03-06 15:08:50 UTC
Permalink
Hi Frances,

your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language where
personal nouns are gendered will always display the
masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it from a
new dummy account.

you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and especially so
because community majority has not seen to changing that
space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.

so this adds another item of disharmony to my cautious note
on gender stats

best,
Claudia
---------- Original Message -----------
From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
> >
> > > One change that could address the latter incentive is
to change the
> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical
gender is not the
> > > default for new users. It could be randomly assigned,
and then some men
> > as
> > > well as some women would have the incentive to set
their gender
> > preferences.
> >
> > That's how it currently works, according to the manual,
with the default
> > gender set to 'unknown':
> > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
> >
> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in
effect on
> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
> >
>
> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
> personal nouns are gendered will always display
> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
> need to change his gender in preferences in order
> to be described accurately where a female user
> would need to set her gender in order to be
> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
>
> -Frances
------- End of Original Message -------
Sam Katz
2015-03-06 16:53:50 UTC
Permalink
hey,

I just want to note that I am not convinced that gender expression
online or indeed expression in general is the same as it is in real
space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are trying to
prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that indeed it may not
have a gender bias directly if the structure does not impose it.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> Hi Frances,
>
> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language where
> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it from a
> new dummy account.
>
> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and especially so
> because community majority has not seen to changing that
> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
>
> so this adds another item of disharmony to my cautious note
> on gender stats
>
> best,
> Claudia
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
>> >
>> > > One change that could address the latter incentive is
> to change the
>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical
> gender is not the
>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly assigned,
> and then some men
>> > as
>> > > well as some women would have the incentive to set
> their gender
>> > preferences.
>> >
>> > That's how it currently works, according to the manual,
> with the default
>> > gender set to 'unknown':
>> > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
>> >
>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in
> effect on
>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
>> >
>>
>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
>> to be described accurately where a female user
>> would need to set her gender in order to be
>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
>>
>> -Frances
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Kerry Raymond
2015-03-06 22:18:19 UTC
Permalink
Do you say that as a man or as a woman?

As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely in real life and online.
Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters addressed to "Dr Sir" etc.

Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real life, it has got somewhat
better over the years. But getting involved in Wikipedia and its discussions
about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we really have a gender gap?"
"Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"

Kerry

-----Original Message-----
From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Katz
Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

hey,

I just want to note that I am not convinced that gender expression
online or indeed expression in general is the same as it is in real
space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are trying to
prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that indeed it may not
have a gender bias directly if the structure does not impose it.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> Hi Frances,
>
> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language where
> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it from a
> new dummy account.
>
> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and especially so
> because community majority has not seen to changing that
> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
>
> so this adds another item of disharmony to my cautious note
> on gender stats
>
> best,
> Claudia
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
>> >
>> > > One change that could address the latter incentive is
> to change the
>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical
> gender is not the
>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly assigned,
> and then some men
>> > as
>> > > well as some women would have the incentive to set
> their gender
>> > preferences.
>> >
>> > That's how it currently works, according to the manual,
> with the default
>> > gender set to 'unknown':
>> > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
>> >
>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in
> effect on
>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
>> >
>>
>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
>> to be described accurately where a female user
>> would need to set her gender in order to be
>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
>>
>> -Frances
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Sam Katz
2015-03-06 22:57:58 UTC
Permalink
To those following:
I think this is a valid question I am raising. The question of whether
written communication has a different way of relating than oral, in
the context of a wiki, which by definition is collaborative, tracks
users but allows anonymous editing, is a valid question.

Anonymity and pen names were first used often times by women.

I will also note that in terms of interface biases, Facebook and other
platforms (Acquia Commons) that use photos of their users as
adornments, to show what users have posted do worse than wikipedia in
terms of encouraging safety and courage ("be bold in editing") among
their users.

Clarifying what the question is in this thread is a good first step
towards answering it. If I was confused, I stand corrected, but I
believe this is an important discussion to have.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
>
> As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely in real life and online.
> Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters addressed to "Dr Sir" etc.
>
> Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real life, it has got somewhat
> better over the years. But getting involved in Wikipedia and its discussions
> about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we really have a gender gap?"
> "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
>
> Kerry
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Katz
> Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
> hey,
>
> I just want to note that I am not convinced that gender expression
> online or indeed expression in general is the same as it is in real
> space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are trying to
> prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that indeed it may not
> have a gender bias directly if the structure does not impose it.
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>> Hi Frances,
>>
>> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language where
>> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
>> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it from a
>> new dummy account.
>>
>> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and especially so
>> because community majority has not seen to changing that
>> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
>>
>> so this adds another item of disharmony to my cautious note
>> on gender stats
>>
>> best,
>> Claudia
>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
>>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
>>> >
>>> > > One change that could address the latter incentive is
>> to change the
>>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical
>> gender is not the
>>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly assigned,
>> and then some men
>>> > as
>>> > > well as some women would have the incentive to set
>> their gender
>>> > preferences.
>>> >
>>> > That's how it currently works, according to the manual,
>> with the default
>>> > gender set to 'unknown':
>>> > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
>>> >
>>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in
>> effect on
>>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
>>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
>>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
>>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
>>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
>>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
>>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
>>> to be described accurately where a female user
>>> would need to set her gender in order to be
>>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
>>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
>>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
>>>
>>> -Frances
>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Kerry Raymond
2015-03-06 23:11:35 UTC
Permalink
Sam, as I don't think I understand what you are asking, perhaps you could ask your question again maybe with an example distinguishing between written/oral/online/wiki.

Sent from my iPad

> On 7 Mar 2015, at 8:57 am, Sam Katz <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To those following:
> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The question of whether
> written communication has a different way of relating than oral, in
> the context of a wiki, which by definition is collaborative, tracks
> users but allows anonymous editing, is a valid question.
>
> Anonymity and pen names were first used often times by women.
>
> I will also note that in terms of interface biases, Facebook and other
> platforms (Acquia Commons) that use photos of their users as
> adornments, to show what users have posted do worse than wikipedia in
> terms of encouraging safety and courage ("be bold in editing") among
> their users.
>
> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is a good first step
> towards answering it. If I was confused, I stand corrected, but I
> believe this is an important discussion to have.
>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
>>
>> As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely in real life and online.
>> Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters addressed to "Dr Sir" etc.
>>
>> Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real life, it has got somewhat
>> better over the years. But getting involved in Wikipedia and its discussions
>> about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we really have a gender gap?"
>> "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
>>
>> Kerry
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> [mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Katz
>> Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
>> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>
>> hey,
>>
>> I just want to note that I am not convinced that gender expression
>> online or indeed expression in general is the same as it is in real
>> space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are trying to
>> prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that indeed it may not
>> have a gender bias directly if the structure does not impose it.
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>> Hi Frances,
>>>
>>> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language where
>>> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
>>> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it from a
>>> new dummy account.
>>>
>>> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and especially so
>>> because community majority has not seen to changing that
>>> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
>>>
>>> so this adds another item of disharmony to my cautious note
>>> on gender stats
>>>
>>> best,
>>> Claudia
>>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
>>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>>> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>
>>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
>>>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> One change that could address the latter incentive is
>>> to change the
>>>>>> defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical
>>> gender is not the
>>>>>> default for new users. It could be randomly assigned,
>>> and then some men
>>>>> as
>>>>>> well as some women would have the incentive to set
>>> their gender
>>>>> preferences.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's how it currently works, according to the manual,
>>> with the default
>>>>> gender set to 'unknown':
>>>>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in
>>> effect on
>>>>> Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
>>>>
>>>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
>>>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
>>>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
>>>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
>>>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
>>>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
>>>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
>>>> to be described accurately where a female user
>>>> would need to set her gender in order to be
>>>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
>>>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
>>>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
>>>>
>>>> -Frances
>>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
k***@w4w.net
2015-03-06 23:16:04 UTC
Permalink
yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting

in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably more
important than how the attacked user might identify (or not)

and again, this might be one of the reasons why people
identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining surveys
and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they "are" -
just like many others who do not identify as (e.g.,
heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less safe if
they say anything about their gender/s or sexual
identity/identities... how come?

sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in hegemonic
positions would be willing to switch perspectives for a
minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than 20%" -
posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done away with,
I guess

as for another attempt at switching one's perspective, who
are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or fluid
identities, maybe?

best, Claudia

---------- Original Message -----------
From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
To:***@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia content
and communities <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> To those following:
> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The
> question of whether written communication has a
> different way of relating than oral, in the
> context of a wiki, which by definition is
> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous
> editing, is a valid question.
>
> Anonymity and pen names were first used often
> times by women.
>
> I will also note that in terms of interface biases,
> Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
> show what users have posted do worse than
> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
>
> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
> an important discussion to have.
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
> >
> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely in real
life and online.
> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters addressed
to "Dr Sir" etc.
> >
> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real life,
it has got somewhat
> > better over the years. But getting involved in Wikipedia
and its discussions
> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we really
have a gender gap?"
> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
> >
> > Kerry
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > [mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of Sam Katz
> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
stats Re: Fwd:
> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> > hey,
> >
> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that gender
expression
> > online or indeed expression in general is the same as it
is in real
> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are
trying to
> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that
indeed it may not
> > have a gender bias directly if the structure does not
impose it.
> >
> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <***@w4w.net>
wrote:
> >> Hi Frances,
> >>
> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language where
> >> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it
from a
> >> new dummy account.
> >>
> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and especially so
> >> because community majority has not seen to changing that
> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
> >>
> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my cautious note
> >> on gender stats
> >>
> >> best,
> >> Claudia
> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> >> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> >> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>
> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
> >>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
> >>> >
> >>> > > One change that could address the latter incentive is
> >> to change the
> >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical
> >> gender is not the
> >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly assigned,
> >> and then some men
> >>> > as
> >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive to set
> >> their gender
> >>> > preferences.
> >>> >
> >>> > That's how it currently works, according to the manual,
> >> with the default
> >>> > gender set to 'unknown':
> >>> >
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
> >>> >
> >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in
> >> effect on
> >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
> >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
> >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
> >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
> >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
> >>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
> >>> to be described accurately where a female user
> >>> would need to set her gender in order to be
> >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
> >>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
> >>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
> >>>
> >>> -Frances
> >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
Sam Katz
2015-03-06 23:29:22 UTC
Permalink
It seems to me you are extrapolating from insufficient data. identity
and presentation are not the same thing, but I guess the question in
this context is "what is presentation in an online setting?" "how is
gender shown in an online setting?"

That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have "in a wiki like
wikipedia" and it's a ton harder.

I would prefer we not track gender at all.

--Sam

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting
>
> in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably more
> important than how the attacked user might identify (or not)
>
> and again, this might be one of the reasons why people
> identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining surveys
> and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they "are" -
> just like many others who do not identify as (e.g.,
> heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less safe if
> they say anything about their gender/s or sexual
> identity/identities... how come?
>
> sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in hegemonic
> positions would be willing to switch perspectives for a
> minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than 20%" -
> posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done away with,
> I guess
>
> as for another attempt at switching one's perspective, who
> are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or fluid
> identities, maybe?
>
> best, Claudia
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
> To:***@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia content
> and communities <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
>> To those following:
>> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The
>> question of whether written communication has a
>> different way of relating than oral, in the
>> context of a wiki, which by definition is
>> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous
>> editing, is a valid question.
>>
>> Anonymity and pen names were first used often
>> times by women.
>>
>> I will also note that in terms of interface biases,
>> Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
>> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
>> show what users have posted do worse than
>> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
>> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
>>
>> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
>> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
>> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
>> an important discussion to have.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
>> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
>> >
>> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely in real
> life and online.
>> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters addressed
> to "Dr Sir" etc.
>> >
>> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real life,
> it has got somewhat
>> > better over the years. But getting involved in Wikipedia
> and its discussions
>> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we really
> have a gender gap?"
>> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
>> >
>> > Kerry
>> >
>> > -----Original Message-----
>> > From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > [mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Sam Katz
>> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
>> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> stats Re: Fwd:
>> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >
>> > hey,
>> >
>> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that gender
> expression
>> > online or indeed expression in general is the same as it
> is in real
>> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are
> trying to
>> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that
> indeed it may not
>> > have a gender bias directly if the structure does not
> impose it.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <***@w4w.net>
> wrote:
>> >> Hi Frances,
>> >>
>> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language where
>> >> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
>> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it
> from a
>> >> new dummy account.
>> >>
>> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and especially so
>> >> because community majority has not seen to changing that
>> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
>> >>
>> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my cautious note
>> >> on gender stats
>> >>
>> >> best,
>> >> Claudia
>> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> >> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
>> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> >> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
>> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >>
>> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
>> >>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> >
>> >>> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
>> >>> >
>> >>> > > One change that could address the latter incentive is
>> >> to change the
>> >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical
>> >> gender is not the
>> >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly assigned,
>> >> and then some men
>> >>> > as
>> >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive to set
>> >> their gender
>> >>> > preferences.
>> >>> >
>> >>> > That's how it currently works, according to the manual,
>> >> with the default
>> >>> > gender set to 'unknown':
>> >>> >
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
>> >>> >
>> >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in
>> >> effect on
>> >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
>> >>> >
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
>> >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
>> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
>> >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
>> >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
>> >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
>> >>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
>> >>> to be described accurately where a female user
>> >>> would need to set her gender in order to be
>> >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
>> >>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
>> >>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Frances
>> >> ------- End of Original Message -------
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >>
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>> research-l
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
k***@w4w.net
2015-03-07 07:32:57 UTC
Permalink
> I would prefer we not track gender at all.

why not for a wiki like Wikipedia?

and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a ton harder" to deal
with?

thanks,
Claudia

---------- Original Message -----------
From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:22 -0600
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> It seems to me you are extrapolating from
> insufficient data. identity and presentation are
> not the same thing, but I guess the question in
> this context is "what is presentation in an online
> setting?" "how is gender shown in an online setting?"
>
> That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have
> "in a wiki like wikipedia" and it's a ton harder.
>
> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>
> --Sam
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM,
> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting
> >
> > in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably more
> > important than how the attacked user might identify (or not)
> >
> > and again, this might be one of the reasons why people
> > identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining surveys
> > and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they "are" -
> > just like many others who do not identify as (e.g.,
> > heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less safe if
> > they say anything about their gender/s or sexual
> > identity/identities... how come?
> >
> > sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in hegemonic
> > positions would be willing to switch perspectives for a
> > minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than 20%" -
> > posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done away with,
> > I guess
> >
> > as for another attempt at switching one's perspective, who
> > are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or fluid
> > identities, maybe?
> >
> > best, Claudia
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
> > To:***@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia content
> > and communities <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> >> To those following:
> >> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The
> >> question of whether written communication has a
> >> different way of relating than oral, in the
> >> context of a wiki, which by definition is
> >> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous
> >> editing, is a valid question.
> >>
> >> Anonymity and pen names were first used often
> >> times by women.
> >>
> >> I will also note that in terms of interface biases,
> >> Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
> >> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
> >> show what users have posted do worse than
> >> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
> >> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
> >>
> >> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
> >> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
> >> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
> >> an important discussion to have.
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
> >> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
> >> >
> >> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely in real
> > life and online.
> >> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters addressed
> > to "Dr Sir" etc.
> >> >
> >> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real life,
> > it has got somewhat
> >> > better over the years. But getting involved in Wikipedia
> > and its discussions
> >> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we really
> > have a gender gap?"
> >> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
> >> >
> >> > Kerry
> >> >
> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> > From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > [mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Sam Katz
> >> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
> >> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> >> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> > stats Re: Fwd:
> >> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >> >
> >> > hey,
> >> >
> >> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that gender
> > expression
> >> > online or indeed expression in general is the same as it
> > is in real
> >> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are
> > trying to
> >> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that
> > indeed it may not
> >> > have a gender bias directly if the structure does not
> > impose it.
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <***@w4w.net>
> > wrote:
> >> >> Hi Frances,
> >> >>
> >> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language where
> >> >> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
> >> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it
> > from a
> >> >> new dummy account.
> >> >>
> >> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and especially so
> >> >> because community majority has not seen to changing that
> >> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
> >> >>
> >> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my cautious note
> >> >> on gender stats
> >> >>
> >> >> best,
> >> >> Claudia
> >> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> >> >> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
> >> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> >> >> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
> >> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> >> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >> >>
> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
> >> >>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > > One change that could address the latter incentive is
> >> >> to change the
> >> >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical
> >> >> gender is not the
> >> >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly assigned,
> >> >> and then some men
> >> >>> > as
> >> >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive to set
> >> >> their gender
> >> >>> > preferences.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > That's how it currently works, according to the manual,
> >> >> with the default
> >> >>> > gender set to 'unknown':
> >> >>> >
> > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
> >> >>> >
> >> >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in
> >> >> effect on
> >> >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
> >> >>> >
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
> >> >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
> >> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
> >> >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
> >> >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
> >> >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
> >> >>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
> >> >>> to be described accurately where a female user
> >> >>> would need to set her gender in order to be
> >> >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
> >> >>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
> >> >>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -Frances
> >> >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >>
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> >> research-l
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
Sam Katz
2015-03-07 16:28:55 UTC
Permalink
does a wiki have single authorship (like the original britannica) or
multiple authorship? does it value anonymity? is gender discrimination
more likely when it is known?

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>
> why not for a wiki like Wikipedia?
>
> and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a ton harder" to deal
> with?
>
> thanks,
> Claudia
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:22 -0600
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
>> It seems to me you are extrapolating from
>> insufficient data. identity and presentation are
>> not the same thing, but I guess the question in
>> this context is "what is presentation in an online
>> setting?" "how is gender shown in an online setting?"
>>
>> That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have
>> "in a wiki like wikipedia" and it's a ton harder.
>>
>> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>>
>> --Sam
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM,
>> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>> > yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting
>> >
>> > in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably more
>> > important than how the attacked user might identify (or not)
>> >
>> > and again, this might be one of the reasons why people
>> > identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining surveys
>> > and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they "are" -
>> > just like many others who do not identify as (e.g.,
>> > heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less safe if
>> > they say anything about their gender/s or sexual
>> > identity/identities... how come?
>> >
>> > sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in hegemonic
>> > positions would be willing to switch perspectives for a
>> > minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than 20%" -
>> > posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done away with,
>> > I guess
>> >
>> > as for another attempt at switching one's perspective, who
>> > are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or fluid
>> > identities, maybe?
>> >
>> > best, Claudia
>> >
>> > ---------- Original Message -----------
>> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
>> > To:***@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia content
>> > and communities <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600
>> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>> > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >
>> >> To those following:
>> >> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The
>> >> question of whether written communication has a
>> >> different way of relating than oral, in the
>> >> context of a wiki, which by definition is
>> >> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous
>> >> editing, is a valid question.
>> >>
>> >> Anonymity and pen names were first used often
>> >> times by women.
>> >>
>> >> I will also note that in terms of interface biases,
>> >> Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
>> >> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
>> >> show what users have posted do worse than
>> >> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
>> >> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
>> >>
>> >> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
>> >> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
>> >> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
>> >> an important discussion to have.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
>> >> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
>> >> >
>> >> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely in real
>> > life and online.
>> >> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters addressed
>> > to "Dr Sir" etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real life,
>> > it has got somewhat
>> >> > better over the years. But getting involved in Wikipedia
>> > and its discussions
>> >> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we really
>> > have a gender gap?"
>> >> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
>> >> >
>> >> > Kerry
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> > [mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Sam Katz
>> >> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
>> >> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> >> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>> > stats Re: Fwd:
>> >> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >> >
>> >> > hey,
>> >> >
>> >> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that gender
>> > expression
>> >> > online or indeed expression in general is the same as it
>> > is in real
>> >> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are
>> > trying to
>> >> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that
>> > indeed it may not
>> >> > have a gender bias directly if the structure does not
>> > impose it.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <***@w4w.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Frances,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language where
>> >> >> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
>> >> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it
>> > from a
>> >> >> new dummy account.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and especially so
>> >> >> because community majority has not seen to changing that
>> >> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my cautious note
>> >> >> on gender stats
>> >> >>
>> >> >> best,
>> >> >> Claudia
>> >> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> >> >> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
>> >> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> >> >> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> >> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
>> >> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>> >> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
>> >> >>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > > One change that could address the latter incentive is
>> >> >> to change the
>> >> >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical
>> >> >> gender is not the
>> >> >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly assigned,
>> >> >> and then some men
>> >> >>> > as
>> >> >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive to set
>> >> >> their gender
>> >> >>> > preferences.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > That's how it currently works, according to the manual,
>> >> >> with the default
>> >> >>> > gender set to 'unknown':
>> >> >>> >
>> > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in
>> >> >> effect on
>> >> >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
>> >> >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
>> >> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
>> >> >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
>> >> >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
>> >> >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
>> >> >>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
>> >> >>> to be described accurately where a female user
>> >> >>> would need to set her gender in order to be
>> >> >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
>> >> >>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
>> >> >>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> -Frances
>> >> >> ------- End of Original Message -------
>> >> >>
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> >>
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>> >> research-l
>> > ------- End of Original Message -------
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>> research-l
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
k***@w4w.net
2015-03-07 19:23:22 UTC
Permalink
when what is known? gender discrimination?

---------- Original Message -----------
From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:28:55 -0600
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> does a wiki have single authorship (like the
> original britannica) or multiple authorship? does
> it value anonymity? is gender discrimination more
> likely when it is known?
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM,
> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
> >
> > why not for a wiki like Wikipedia?
> >
> > and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a
ton harder" to deal
> > with?
> >
> > thanks,
> > Claudia
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-
> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:22 -0600
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
stats Re: Fwd:
> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> >> It seems to me you are extrapolating from
> >> insufficient data. identity and presentation are
> >> not the same thing, but I guess the question in
> >> this context is "what is presentation in an online
> >> setting?" "how is gender shown in an online setting?"
> >>
> >> That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have
> >> "in a wiki like wikipedia" and it's a ton harder.
> >>
> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
> >>
> >> --Sam
> >>
> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM,
> >> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >> > yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting
> >> >
> >> > in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably
more
> >> > important than how the attacked user might identify
(or not)
> >> >
> >> > and again, this might be one of the reasons why people
> >> > identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining
surveys
> >> > and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they
"are" -
> >> > just like many others who do not identify as (e.g.,
> >> > heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less
safe if
> >> > they say anything about their gender/s or sexual
> >> > identity/identities... how come?
> >> >
> >> > sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in
hegemonic
> >> > positions would be willing to switch perspectives for a
> >> > minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than
20%" -
> >> > posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done
away with,
> >> > I guess
> >> >
> >> > as for another attempt at switching one's
perspective, who
> >> > are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or fluid
> >> > identities, maybe?
> >> >
> >> > best, Claudia
> >> >
> >> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> >> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
> >> > To:***@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia
content
> >> > and communities <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600
> >> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> >> > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >> >
> >> >> To those following:
> >> >> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The
> >> >> question of whether written communication has a
> >> >> different way of relating than oral, in the
> >> >> context of a wiki, which by definition is
> >> >> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous
> >> >> editing, is a valid question.
> >> >>
> >> >> Anonymity and pen names were first used often
> >> >> times by women.
> >> >>
> >> >> I will also note that in terms of interface biases,
> >> >> Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
> >> >> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
> >> >> show what users have posted do worse than
> >> >> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
> >> >> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
> >> >>
> >> >> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
> >> >> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
> >> >> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
> >> >> an important discussion to have.
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
> >> >> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely
in real
> >> > life and online.
> >> >> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters
addressed
> >> > to "Dr Sir" etc.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real
life,
> >> > it has got somewhat
> >> >> > better over the years. But getting involved in
Wikipedia
> >> > and its discussions
> >> >> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we
really
> >> > have a gender gap?"
> >> >> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Kerry
> >> >> >
> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> > From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> >
[mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> >> > Behalf Of Sam Katz
> >> >> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
> >> >> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> >> >> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
gender
> >> > stats Re: Fwd:
> >> >> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >> >> >
> >> >> > hey,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that
gender
> >> > expression
> >> >> > online or indeed expression in general is the same
as it
> >> > is in real
> >> >> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are
> >> > trying to
> >> >> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that
> >> > indeed it may not
> >> >> > have a gender bias directly if the structure does not
> >> > impose it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <***@w4w.net>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> Hi Frances,
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language
where
> >> >> >> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
> >> >> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it
> >> > from a
> >> >> >> new dummy account.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and
especially so
> >> >> >> because community majority has not seen to
changing that
> >> >> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my
cautious note
> >> >> >> on gender stats
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> best,
> >> >> >> Claudia
> >> >> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> >> >> >> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
> >> >> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> >> >> >> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> >> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
> >> >> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
gender
> >> >> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
> >> >> >>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > > One change that could address the latter
incentive is
> >> >> >> to change the
> >> >> >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine
grammatical
> >> >> >> gender is not the
> >> >> >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly
assigned,
> >> >> >> and then some men
> >> >> >>> > as
> >> >> >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive
to set
> >> >> >> their gender
> >> >> >>> > preferences.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > That's how it currently works, according to
the manual,
> >> >> >> with the default
> >> >> >>> > gender set to 'unknown':
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or
what's in
> >> >> >> effect on
> >> >> >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
> >> >> >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
> >> >> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
> >> >> >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
> >> >> >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
> >> >> >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
> >> >> >>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
> >> >> >>> to be described accurately where a female user
> >> >> >>> would need to set her gender in order to be
> >> >> >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
> >> >> >>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
> >> >> >>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >>> -Frances
> >> >> >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> >>
> >> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >> >> >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> >> >> research-l
> >> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> >> research-l
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
Sam Katz
2015-03-07 21:05:26 UTC
Permalink
people's gender. does knowing someone's gender increase bias? My guess
based on the real life experiments is yes.

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:23 PM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> when what is known? gender discrimination?
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:28:55 -0600
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
>> does a wiki have single authorship (like the
>> original britannica) or multiple authorship? does
>> it value anonymity? is gender discrimination more
>> likely when it is known?
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM,
>> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>> >
>> > why not for a wiki like Wikipedia?
>> >
>> > and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a
> ton harder" to deal
>> > with?
>> >
>> > thanks,
>> > Claudia
>> >
>> > ---------- Original Message -----------
>> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
>> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> <wiki-research-
>> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:22 -0600
>> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> stats Re: Fwd:
>> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >
>> >> It seems to me you are extrapolating from
>> >> insufficient data. identity and presentation are
>> >> not the same thing, but I guess the question in
>> >> this context is "what is presentation in an online
>> >> setting?" "how is gender shown in an online setting?"
>> >>
>> >> That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have
>> >> "in a wiki like wikipedia" and it's a ton harder.
>> >>
>> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>> >>
>> >> --Sam
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM,
>> >> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>> >> > yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting
>> >> >
>> >> > in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably
> more
>> >> > important than how the attacked user might identify
> (or not)
>> >> >
>> >> > and again, this might be one of the reasons why people
>> >> > identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining
> surveys
>> >> > and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they
> "are" -
>> >> > just like many others who do not identify as (e.g.,
>> >> > heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less
> safe if
>> >> > they say anything about their gender/s or sexual
>> >> > identity/identities... how come?
>> >> >
>> >> > sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in
> hegemonic
>> >> > positions would be willing to switch perspectives for a
>> >> > minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than
> 20%" -
>> >> > posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done
> away with,
>> >> > I guess
>> >> >
>> >> > as for another attempt at switching one's
> perspective, who
>> >> > are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or fluid
>> >> > identities, maybe?
>> >> >
>> >> > best, Claudia
>> >> >
>> >> > ---------- Original Message -----------
>> >> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
>> >> > To:***@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia
> content
>> >> > and communities <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> >> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600
>> >> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>> >> > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >> >
>> >> >> To those following:
>> >> >> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The
>> >> >> question of whether written communication has a
>> >> >> different way of relating than oral, in the
>> >> >> context of a wiki, which by definition is
>> >> >> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous
>> >> >> editing, is a valid question.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Anonymity and pen names were first used often
>> >> >> times by women.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I will also note that in terms of interface biases,
>> >> >> Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
>> >> >> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
>> >> >> show what users have posted do worse than
>> >> >> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
>> >> >> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
>> >> >> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
>> >> >> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
>> >> >> an important discussion to have.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
>> >> >> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely
> in real
>> >> > life and online.
>> >> >> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters
> addressed
>> >> > to "Dr Sir" etc.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real
> life,
>> >> > it has got somewhat
>> >> >> > better over the years. But getting involved in
> Wikipedia
>> >> > and its discussions
>> >> >> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we
> really
>> >> > have a gender gap?"
>> >> >> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Kerry
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> >> > From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> >> >
> [mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> >> > Behalf Of Sam Katz
>> >> >> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
>> >> >> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
> gender
>> >> > stats Re: Fwd:
>> >> >> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > hey,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that
> gender
>> >> > expression
>> >> >> > online or indeed expression in general is the same
> as it
>> >> > is in real
>> >> >> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are
>> >> > trying to
>> >> >> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that
>> >> > indeed it may not
>> >> >> > have a gender bias directly if the structure does not
>> >> > impose it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <***@w4w.net>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> Hi Frances,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language
> where
>> >> >> >> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
>> >> >> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it
>> >> > from a
>> >> >> >> new dummy account.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and
> especially so
>> >> >> >> because community majority has not seen to
> changing that
>> >> >> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my
> cautious note
>> >> >> >> on gender stats
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> best,
>> >> >> >> Claudia
>> >> >> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> >> >> >> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
>> >> >> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> >> >> >> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> >> >> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
>> >> >> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
> gender
>> >> >> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
>> >> >> >>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> > > One change that could address the latter
> incentive is
>> >> >> >> to change the
>> >> >> >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine
> grammatical
>> >> >> >> gender is not the
>> >> >> >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly
> assigned,
>> >> >> >> and then some men
>> >> >> >>> > as
>> >> >> >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive
> to set
>> >> >> >> their gender
>> >> >> >>> > preferences.
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> > That's how it currently works, according to
> the manual,
>> >> >> >> with the default
>> >> >> >>> > gender set to 'unknown':
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >
> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or
> what's in
>> >> >> >> effect on
>> >> >> >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
>> >> >> >>> >
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
>> >> >> >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
>> >> >> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
>> >> >> >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
>> >> >> >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
>> >> >> >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
>> >> >> >>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
>> >> >> >>> to be described accurately where a female user
>> >> >> >>> would need to set her gender in order to be
>> >> >> >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
>> >> >> >>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
>> >> >> >>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
>> >> >> >>>
>> >> >> >>> -Frances
>> >> >> >> ------- End of Original Message -------
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> >> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> >> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> >> >>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>> >> >> research-l
>> >> > ------- End of Original Message -------
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> >
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>> >> research-l
>> > ------- End of Original Message -------
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>> research-l
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Oliver Keyes
2015-03-08 01:45:43 UTC
Permalink
Sam,

So, gender display online != gender display offline, but knowing
gender online == knowing gender offline? That's not how frames work.

Does knowing someone's gender increase bias? Probably. Because it's a
biased and gendered environment we've found ourselves with. Does not
knowing someone's gender remove bias? Not in the slightest - because
area effect microaggressions are a thing, and a community built by one
demographic has processes and standards optimised /for/ that
demographic and /away/ from a lot of others.

This idea - that women were the first to adopt pen names and so it's
possible to avoid microaggressions and bias if you simply stay
anonymous - is discriminatory in and of itself (if we have an
environment where women have to hide who they are to contribute, the
problem is the environment. Do not put the burden and responsibility
of avoiding the discrimination on the people suffering from it).
Moreover, people won't actually avoid the gender bias, just the
extremes of it, because structures still exert their own bias.

And, yes, structures /might/ not impose gender bias. But our
structures /do/, implicitly and explicitly, in a million ways. When we
have male pronouns as the default, when we have a system that is
totally ignorant of the differences in sociological conditioning
between different demographics (we have adversarial dispute resolution
procedures and a clinical inability to control aggressive users. How
do you think that meshes with Western, at least, gender
essentialism?), we have a structure imposing gender bias.

And that's the structure that we have, and arguing that there might be
a universe in which this doesn't happen is not a useful argument to
make. It's akin to dealing with an inferno in an apartment building by
showing up and pointing out that, /strictly speaking/, buildings don't
/have/ to be on fire. It's, you know, true, and that's nice, but it's
not particularly applicable when our building quite clearly /is/ on
fire.

So let's get back to brainstorming on how we improve the data we have
in this field, and our understanding of the dynamics and biases and
makeup of the community, and away from "there could be a community
somewhere where these problems are moot", please.

On 7 March 2015 at 16:05, Sam Katz <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> people's gender. does knowing someone's gender increase bias? My guess
> based on the real life experiments is yes.
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:23 PM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>> when what is known? gender discrimination?
>>
>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:28:55 -0600
>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>
>>> does a wiki have single authorship (like the
>>> original britannica) or multiple authorship? does
>>> it value anonymity? is gender discrimination more
>>> likely when it is known?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM,
>>> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>>> >
>>> > why not for a wiki like Wikipedia?
>>> >
>>> > and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a
>> ton harder" to deal
>>> > with?
>>> >
>>> > thanks,
>>> > Claudia
>>> >
>>> > ---------- Original Message -----------
>>> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
>>> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> <wiki-research-
>>> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:22 -0600
>>> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>> stats Re: Fwd:
>>> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>> >
>>> >> It seems to me you are extrapolating from
>>> >> insufficient data. identity and presentation are
>>> >> not the same thing, but I guess the question in
>>> >> this context is "what is presentation in an online
>>> >> setting?" "how is gender shown in an online setting?"
>>> >>
>>> >> That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have
>>> >> "in a wiki like wikipedia" and it's a ton harder.
>>> >>
>>> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>>> >>
>>> >> --Sam
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM,
>>> >> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>> >> > yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting
>>> >> >
>>> >> > in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably
>> more
>>> >> > important than how the attacked user might identify
>> (or not)
>>> >> >
>>> >> > and again, this might be one of the reasons why people
>>> >> > identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining
>> surveys
>>> >> > and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they
>> "are" -
>>> >> > just like many others who do not identify as (e.g.,
>>> >> > heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less
>> safe if
>>> >> > they say anything about their gender/s or sexual
>>> >> > identity/identities... how come?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in
>> hegemonic
>>> >> > positions would be willing to switch perspectives for a
>>> >> > minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than
>> 20%" -
>>> >> > posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done
>> away with,
>>> >> > I guess
>>> >> >
>>> >> > as for another attempt at switching one's
>> perspective, who
>>> >> > are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or fluid
>>> >> > identities, maybe?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > best, Claudia
>>> >> >
>>> >> > ---------- Original Message -----------
>>> >> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
>>> >> > To:***@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia
>> content
>>> >> > and communities <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> >> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600
>>> >> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>>> >> > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> To those following:
>>> >> >> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The
>>> >> >> question of whether written communication has a
>>> >> >> different way of relating than oral, in the
>>> >> >> context of a wiki, which by definition is
>>> >> >> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous
>>> >> >> editing, is a valid question.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Anonymity and pen names were first used often
>>> >> >> times by women.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I will also note that in terms of interface biases,
>>> >> >> Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
>>> >> >> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
>>> >> >> show what users have posted do worse than
>>> >> >> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
>>> >> >> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
>>> >> >> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
>>> >> >> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
>>> >> >> an important discussion to have.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
>>> >> >> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely
>> in real
>>> >> > life and online.
>>> >> >> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters
>> addressed
>>> >> > to "Dr Sir" etc.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real
>> life,
>>> >> > it has got somewhat
>>> >> >> > better over the years. But getting involved in
>> Wikipedia
>>> >> > and its discussions
>>> >> >> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we
>> really
>>> >> > have a gender gap?"
>>> >> >> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > Kerry
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
>>> >> >> > From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> >> >> >
>> [mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>>> >> > Behalf Of Sam Katz
>>> >> >> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
>>> >> >> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
>> gender
>>> >> > stats Re: Fwd:
>>> >> >> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > hey,
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that
>> gender
>>> >> > expression
>>> >> >> > online or indeed expression in general is the same
>> as it
>>> >> > is in real
>>> >> >> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are
>>> >> > trying to
>>> >> >> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that
>>> >> > indeed it may not
>>> >> >> > have a gender bias directly if the structure does not
>>> >> > impose it.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <***@w4w.net>
>>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >> >> Hi Frances,
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language
>> where
>>> >> >> >> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
>>> >> >> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it
>>> >> > from a
>>> >> >> >> new dummy account.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and
>> especially so
>>> >> >> >> because community majority has not seen to
>> changing that
>>> >> >> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my
>> cautious note
>>> >> >> >> on gender stats
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> best,
>>> >> >> >> Claudia
>>> >> >> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>> >> >> >> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
>>> >> >> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>> >> >> >> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> >> >> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
>>> >> >> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
>> gender
>>> >> >> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
>>> >> >> >>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> > > One change that could address the latter
>> incentive is
>>> >> >> >> to change the
>>> >> >> >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine
>> grammatical
>>> >> >> >> gender is not the
>>> >> >> >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly
>> assigned,
>>> >> >> >> and then some men
>>> >> >> >>> > as
>>> >> >> >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive
>> to set
>>> >> >> >> their gender
>>> >> >> >>> > preferences.
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> > That's how it currently works, according to
>> the manual,
>>> >> >> >> with the default
>>> >> >> >>> > gender set to 'unknown':
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >
>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or
>> what's in
>>> >> >> >> effect on
>>> >> >> >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
>>> >> >> >>> >
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
>>> >> >> >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
>>> >> >> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
>>> >> >> >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
>>> >> >> >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
>>> >> >> >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
>>> >> >> >>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
>>> >> >> >>> to be described accurately where a female user
>>> >> >> >>> would need to set her gender in order to be
>>> >> >> >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
>>> >> >> >>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
>>> >> >> >>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
>>> >> >> >>>
>>> >> >> >>> -Frances
>>> >> >> >> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> >> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> >> >> >
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> >> >> >
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>>> >> >> research-l
>>> >> > ------- End of Original Message -------
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> >> >
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>>> >> research-l
>>> > ------- End of Original Message -------
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>>> research-l
>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
Sam Katz
2015-03-08 04:02:10 UTC
Permalink
It is our job to improve wikipedia.

I hope we do that.

Frames I assume you mean linguistic frames.

I think in order to record or track gender pronouns on wikipedia you
have to have a compelling reason to do it, not a compelling reason not
to. There is no reason to identify users -- we agree on that that's
why we allow anonymous submissions. I think any personal identifier is
a really bad idea -- ask the EFF if you don't believe me.

I've made my case. It should in theory not be pushed aside by some
academic ivory tower spiel. But I'll refer my case somewhere else... I
think for the trans community this is pretty important, as well as for
people posting from other countries where 'bias' means death.

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Oliver Keyes <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Sam,
>
> So, gender display online != gender display offline, but knowing
> gender online == knowing gender offline? That's not how frames work.
>
> Does knowing someone's gender increase bias? Probably. Because it's a
> biased and gendered environment we've found ourselves with. Does not
> knowing someone's gender remove bias? Not in the slightest - because
> area effect microaggressions are a thing, and a community built by one
> demographic has processes and standards optimised /for/ that
> demographic and /away/ from a lot of others.
>
> This idea - that women were the first to adopt pen names and so it's
> possible to avoid microaggressions and bias if you simply stay
> anonymous - is discriminatory in and of itself (if we have an
> environment where women have to hide who they are to contribute, the
> problem is the environment. Do not put the burden and responsibility
> of avoiding the discrimination on the people suffering from it).
> Moreover, people won't actually avoid the gender bias, just the
> extremes of it, because structures still exert their own bias.
>
> And, yes, structures /might/ not impose gender bias. But our
> structures /do/, implicitly and explicitly, in a million ways. When we
> have male pronouns as the default, when we have a system that is
> totally ignorant of the differences in sociological conditioning
> between different demographics (we have adversarial dispute resolution
> procedures and a clinical inability to control aggressive users. How
> do you think that meshes with Western, at least, gender
> essentialism?), we have a structure imposing gender bias.
>
> And that's the structure that we have, and arguing that there might be
> a universe in which this doesn't happen is not a useful argument to
> make. It's akin to dealing with an inferno in an apartment building by
> showing up and pointing out that, /strictly speaking/, buildings don't
> /have/ to be on fire. It's, you know, true, and that's nice, but it's
> not particularly applicable when our building quite clearly /is/ on
> fire.
>
> So let's get back to brainstorming on how we improve the data we have
> in this field, and our understanding of the dynamics and biases and
> makeup of the community, and away from "there could be a community
> somewhere where these problems are moot", please.
>
> On 7 March 2015 at 16:05, Sam Katz <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>> people's gender. does knowing someone's gender increase bias? My guess
>> based on the real life experiments is yes.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:23 PM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>> when what is known? gender discrimination?
>>>
>>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>> From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:28:55 -0600
>>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>>> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>
>>>> does a wiki have single authorship (like the
>>>> original britannica) or multiple authorship? does
>>>> it value anonymity? is gender discrimination more
>>>> likely when it is known?
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM,
>>>> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>>> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>>>> >
>>>> > why not for a wiki like Wikipedia?
>>>> >
>>>> > and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a
>>> ton harder" to deal
>>>> > with?
>>>> >
>>>> > thanks,
>>>> > Claudia
>>>> >
>>>> > ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
>>>> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>> <wiki-research-
>>>> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:22 -0600
>>>> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>>> stats Re: Fwd:
>>>> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>> >
>>>> >> It seems to me you are extrapolating from
>>>> >> insufficient data. identity and presentation are
>>>> >> not the same thing, but I guess the question in
>>>> >> this context is "what is presentation in an online
>>>> >> setting?" "how is gender shown in an online setting?"
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have
>>>> >> "in a wiki like wikipedia" and it's a ton harder.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> --Sam
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM,
>>>> >> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>>> >> > yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably
>>> more
>>>> >> > important than how the attacked user might identify
>>> (or not)
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > and again, this might be one of the reasons why people
>>>> >> > identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining
>>> surveys
>>>> >> > and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they
>>> "are" -
>>>> >> > just like many others who do not identify as (e.g.,
>>>> >> > heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less
>>> safe if
>>>> >> > they say anything about their gender/s or sexual
>>>> >> > identity/identities... how come?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in
>>> hegemonic
>>>> >> > positions would be willing to switch perspectives for a
>>>> >> > minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than
>>> 20%" -
>>>> >> > posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done
>>> away with,
>>>> >> > I guess
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > as for another attempt at switching one's
>>> perspective, who
>>>> >> > are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or fluid
>>>> >> > identities, maybe?
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > best, Claudia
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>> >> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
>>>> >> > To:***@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia
>>> content
>>>> >> > and communities <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>> >> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600
>>>> >> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>>>> >> > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> To those following:
>>>> >> >> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The
>>>> >> >> question of whether written communication has a
>>>> >> >> different way of relating than oral, in the
>>>> >> >> context of a wiki, which by definition is
>>>> >> >> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous
>>>> >> >> editing, is a valid question.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Anonymity and pen names were first used often
>>>> >> >> times by women.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> I will also note that in terms of interface biases,
>>>> >> >> Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
>>>> >> >> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
>>>> >> >> show what users have posted do worse than
>>>> >> >> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
>>>> >> >> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
>>>> >> >> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
>>>> >> >> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
>>>> >> >> an important discussion to have.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
>>>> >> >> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely
>>> in real
>>>> >> > life and online.
>>>> >> >> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters
>>> addressed
>>>> >> > to "Dr Sir" etc.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real
>>> life,
>>>> >> > it has got somewhat
>>>> >> >> > better over the years. But getting involved in
>>> Wikipedia
>>>> >> > and its discussions
>>>> >> >> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we
>>> really
>>>> >> > have a gender gap?"
>>>> >> >> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > Kerry
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
>>>> >> >> > From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> >> >> >
>>> [mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>>>> >> > Behalf Of Sam Katz
>>>> >> >> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
>>>> >> >> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
>>> gender
>>>> >> > stats Re: Fwd:
>>>> >> >> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > hey,
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that
>>> gender
>>>> >> > expression
>>>> >> >> > online or indeed expression in general is the same
>>> as it
>>>> >> > is in real
>>>> >> >> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are
>>>> >> > trying to
>>>> >> >> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that
>>>> >> > indeed it may not
>>>> >> >> > have a gender bias directly if the structure does not
>>>> >> > impose it.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <***@w4w.net>
>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> Hi Frances,
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language
>>> where
>>>> >> >> >> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
>>>> >> >> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it
>>>> >> > from a
>>>> >> >> >> new dummy account.
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and
>>> especially so
>>>> >> >> >> because community majority has not seen to
>>> changing that
>>>> >> >> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my
>>> cautious note
>>>> >> >> >> on gender stats
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> best,
>>>> >> >> >> Claudia
>>>> >> >> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>> >> >> >> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
>>>> >> >> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>>> >> >> >> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>> >> >> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
>>>> >> >> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
>>> gender
>>>> >> >> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
>>>> >> >> >>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>> >> >> >>> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>> >> >> >>> > > One change that could address the latter
>>> incentive is
>>>> >> >> >> to change the
>>>> >> >> >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine
>>> grammatical
>>>> >> >> >> gender is not the
>>>> >> >> >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly
>>> assigned,
>>>> >> >> >> and then some men
>>>> >> >> >>> > as
>>>> >> >> >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive
>>> to set
>>>> >> >> >> their gender
>>>> >> >> >>> > preferences.
>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>> >> >> >>> > That's how it currently works, according to
>>> the manual,
>>>> >> >> >> with the default
>>>> >> >> >>> > gender set to 'unknown':
>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>> >> >
>>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>> >> >> >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or
>>> what's in
>>>> >> >> >> effect on
>>>> >> >> >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
>>>> >> >> >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
>>>> >> >> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
>>>> >> >> >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
>>>> >> >> >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
>>>> >> >> >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
>>>> >> >> >>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
>>>> >> >> >>> to be described accurately where a female user
>>>> >> >> >>> would need to set her gender in order to be
>>>> >> >> >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
>>>> >> >> >>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
>>>> >> >> >>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>> >> >> >>> -Frances
>>>> >> >> >> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> >> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> >> >> >
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> >> >> >
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>>>> >> >> research-l
>>>> >> > ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> >> >
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>> >>
>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>>>> >> research-l
>>>> > ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>> >
>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>>>> research-l
>>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Research Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Oliver Keyes
2015-03-08 04:37:56 UTC
Permalink
Nope - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28social_sciences%29 .
The collection of contexts someone approaches a situation with.

I totally agree that forcing identification is verboten; this wasn't
an ivory tower schpiel. It was the response of a long-term (10 years)
Wikipedian, who also happens to be a researcher into how our projects
work, to the argument that if people avoid identifying themselves as a
member of a particular demography, everything will just be fine.

On 7 March 2015 at 23:02, Sam Katz <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is our job to improve wikipedia.
>
> I hope we do that.
>
> Frames I assume you mean linguistic frames.
>
> I think in order to record or track gender pronouns on wikipedia you
> have to have a compelling reason to do it, not a compelling reason not
> to. There is no reason to identify users -- we agree on that that's
> why we allow anonymous submissions. I think any personal identifier is
> a really bad idea -- ask the EFF if you don't believe me.
>
> I've made my case. It should in theory not be pushed aside by some
> academic ivory tower spiel. But I'll refer my case somewhere else... I
> think for the trans community this is pretty important, as well as for
> people posting from other countries where 'bias' means death.
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Oliver Keyes <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> Sam,
>>
>> So, gender display online != gender display offline, but knowing
>> gender online == knowing gender offline? That's not how frames work.
>>
>> Does knowing someone's gender increase bias? Probably. Because it's a
>> biased and gendered environment we've found ourselves with. Does not
>> knowing someone's gender remove bias? Not in the slightest - because
>> area effect microaggressions are a thing, and a community built by one
>> demographic has processes and standards optimised /for/ that
>> demographic and /away/ from a lot of others.
>>
>> This idea - that women were the first to adopt pen names and so it's
>> possible to avoid microaggressions and bias if you simply stay
>> anonymous - is discriminatory in and of itself (if we have an
>> environment where women have to hide who they are to contribute, the
>> problem is the environment. Do not put the burden and responsibility
>> of avoiding the discrimination on the people suffering from it).
>> Moreover, people won't actually avoid the gender bias, just the
>> extremes of it, because structures still exert their own bias.
>>
>> And, yes, structures /might/ not impose gender bias. But our
>> structures /do/, implicitly and explicitly, in a million ways. When we
>> have male pronouns as the default, when we have a system that is
>> totally ignorant of the differences in sociological conditioning
>> between different demographics (we have adversarial dispute resolution
>> procedures and a clinical inability to control aggressive users. How
>> do you think that meshes with Western, at least, gender
>> essentialism?), we have a structure imposing gender bias.
>>
>> And that's the structure that we have, and arguing that there might be
>> a universe in which this doesn't happen is not a useful argument to
>> make. It's akin to dealing with an inferno in an apartment building by
>> showing up and pointing out that, /strictly speaking/, buildings don't
>> /have/ to be on fire. It's, you know, true, and that's nice, but it's
>> not particularly applicable when our building quite clearly /is/ on
>> fire.
>>
>> So let's get back to brainstorming on how we improve the data we have
>> in this field, and our understanding of the dynamics and biases and
>> makeup of the community, and away from "there could be a community
>> somewhere where these problems are moot", please.
>>
>> On 7 March 2015 at 16:05, Sam Katz <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> people's gender. does knowing someone's gender increase bias? My guess
>>> based on the real life experiments is yes.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:23 PM, <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>>> when what is known? gender discrimination?
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>> From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
>>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>>> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>> Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:28:55 -0600
>>>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>>>> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>>
>>>>> does a wiki have single authorship (like the
>>>>> original britannica) or multiple authorship? does
>>>>> it value anonymity? is gender discrimination more
>>>>> likely when it is known?
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM,
>>>>> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>>>> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > why not for a wiki like Wikipedia?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a
>>>> ton harder" to deal
>>>>> > with?
>>>>> >
>>>>> > thanks,
>>>>> > Claudia
>>>>> >
>>>>> > ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>>> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
>>>>> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>>> <wiki-research-
>>>>> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:22 -0600
>>>>> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>>>> stats Re: Fwd:
>>>>> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> It seems to me you are extrapolating from
>>>>> >> insufficient data. identity and presentation are
>>>>> >> not the same thing, but I guess the question in
>>>>> >> this context is "what is presentation in an online
>>>>> >> setting?" "how is gender shown in an online setting?"
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have
>>>>> >> "in a wiki like wikipedia" and it's a ton harder.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> --Sam
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM,
>>>>> >> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>>>> >> > yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably
>>>> more
>>>>> >> > important than how the attacked user might identify
>>>> (or not)
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > and again, this might be one of the reasons why people
>>>>> >> > identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining
>>>> surveys
>>>>> >> > and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they
>>>> "are" -
>>>>> >> > just like many others who do not identify as (e.g.,
>>>>> >> > heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less
>>>> safe if
>>>>> >> > they say anything about their gender/s or sexual
>>>>> >> > identity/identities... how come?
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in
>>>> hegemonic
>>>>> >> > positions would be willing to switch perspectives for a
>>>>> >> > minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than
>>>> 20%" -
>>>>> >> > posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done
>>>> away with,
>>>>> >> > I guess
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > as for another attempt at switching one's
>>>> perspective, who
>>>>> >> > are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or fluid
>>>>> >> > identities, maybe?
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > best, Claudia
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>>> >> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
>>>>> >> > To:***@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia
>>>> content
>>>>> >> > and communities <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>> >> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600
>>>>> >> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>>>>> >> > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >> To those following:
>>>>> >> >> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The
>>>>> >> >> question of whether written communication has a
>>>>> >> >> different way of relating than oral, in the
>>>>> >> >> context of a wiki, which by definition is
>>>>> >> >> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous
>>>>> >> >> editing, is a valid question.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> Anonymity and pen names were first used often
>>>>> >> >> times by women.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> I will also note that in terms of interface biases,
>>>>> >> >> Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
>>>>> >> >> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
>>>>> >> >> show what users have posted do worse than
>>>>> >> >> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
>>>>> >> >> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
>>>>> >> >> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
>>>>> >> >> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
>>>>> >> >> an important discussion to have.
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
>>>>> >> >> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely
>>>> in real
>>>>> >> > life and online.
>>>>> >> >> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters
>>>> addressed
>>>>> >> > to "Dr Sir" etc.
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real
>>>> life,
>>>>> >> > it has got somewhat
>>>>> >> >> > better over the years. But getting involved in
>>>> Wikipedia
>>>>> >> > and its discussions
>>>>> >> >> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we
>>>> really
>>>>> >> > have a gender gap?"
>>>>> >> >> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > Kerry
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
>>>>> >> >> > From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>> [mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>>>>> >> > Behalf Of Sam Katz
>>>>> >> >> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
>>>>> >> >> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>>>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
>>>> gender
>>>>> >> > stats Re: Fwd:
>>>>> >> >> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > hey,
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that
>>>> gender
>>>>> >> > expression
>>>>> >> >> > online or indeed expression in general is the same
>>>> as it
>>>>> >> > is in real
>>>>> >> >> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are
>>>>> >> > trying to
>>>>> >> >> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that
>>>>> >> > indeed it may not
>>>>> >> >> > have a gender bias directly if the structure does not
>>>>> >> > impose it.
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <***@w4w.net>
>>>>> >> > wrote:
>>>>> >> >> >> Hi Frances,
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language
>>>> where
>>>>> >> >> >> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
>>>>> >> >> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it
>>>>> >> > from a
>>>>> >> >> >> new dummy account.
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and
>>>> especially so
>>>>> >> >> >> because community majority has not seen to
>>>> changing that
>>>>> >> >> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my
>>>> cautious note
>>>>> >> >> >> on gender stats
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> best,
>>>>> >> >> >> Claudia
>>>>> >> >> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>>> >> >> >> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
>>>>> >> >> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>>>> >> >> >> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>> >> >> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
>>>>> >> >> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
>>>> gender
>>>>> >> >> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
>>>>> >> >> >>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> > > One change that could address the latter
>>>> incentive is
>>>>> >> >> >> to change the
>>>>> >> >> >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine
>>>> grammatical
>>>>> >> >> >> gender is not the
>>>>> >> >> >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly
>>>> assigned,
>>>>> >> >> >> and then some men
>>>>> >> >> >>> > as
>>>>> >> >> >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive
>>>> to set
>>>>> >> >> >> their gender
>>>>> >> >> >>> > preferences.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> > That's how it currently works, according to
>>>> the manual,
>>>>> >> >> >> with the default
>>>>> >> >> >>> > gender set to 'unknown':
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or
>>>> what's in
>>>>> >> >> >> effect on
>>>>> >> >> >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
>>>>> >> >> >>> >
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
>>>>> >> >> >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
>>>>> >> >> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
>>>>> >> >> >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
>>>>> >> >> >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
>>>>> >> >> >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
>>>>> >> >> >>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
>>>>> >> >> >>> to be described accurately where a female user
>>>>> >> >> >>> would need to set her gender in order to be
>>>>> >> >> >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
>>>>> >> >> >>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
>>>>> >> >> >>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
>>>>> >> >> >>>
>>>>> >> >> >>> -Frances
>>>>> >> >> >> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> >> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> >> >> >>
>>>>> >> >
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> >> >> >
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>> >> >>
>>>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>>>>> >> >> research-l
>>>>> >> > ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> >
>>>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> >> >
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>> >>
>>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>>>> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>>>>> >> research-l
>>>>> > ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>>> >
>>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>>>> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>>>>> research-l
>>>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Oliver Keyes
>> Research Analyst
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l



--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
k***@w4w.net
2015-03-08 08:43:40 UTC
Permalink
Hi Sam, while my impression has been that the feel in
debates on this list is way from friendly-space inclusive
(and I daresay that, of course, out of ignorance I have been
contributing to the lamented climate myself...),

may I express the wish that you bring more arguments to
strengthen your points within the discourse frame of this
list - I find your pointers very important, not least for
debating how to do better reasearch on the Wikipedia communities

> But I'll refer my case somewhere else... I think for the
trans community this is pretty important, as well as for
people posting from other countries where 'bias' means death.

let me assure you I am well aware of this kind of "gap" in
worldviews and hence discourses,

best,
Claudia

---------- Original Message -----------
From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:02:10 -0600
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> It is our job to improve wikipedia.
>
> I hope we do that.
>
> Frames I assume you mean linguistic frames.
>
> I think in order to record or track gender
> pronouns on wikipedia you have to have a
> compelling reason to do it, not a compelling
> reason not to. There is no reason to identify
> users -- we agree on that that's why we allow
> anonymous submissions. I think any personal
> identifier is a really bad idea -- ask the EFF if
> you don't believe me.
>
> I've made my case. It should in theory not be
> pushed aside by some academic ivory tower spiel.
> But I'll refer my case somewhere else... I think
> for the trans community this is pretty important,
> as well as for people posting from other
> countries where 'bias' means death.
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Oliver Keyes
> <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > Sam,
> >
> > So, gender display online != gender display offline, but
knowing
> > gender online == knowing gender offline? That's not how
frames work.
> >
> > Does knowing someone's gender increase bias? Probably.
Because it's a
> > biased and gendered environment we've found ourselves
with. Does not
> > knowing someone's gender remove bias? Not in the
slightest - because
> > area effect microaggressions are a thing, and a
community built by one
> > demographic has processes and standards optimised /for/ that
> > demographic and /away/ from a lot of others.
> >
> > This idea - that women were the first to adopt pen names
and so it's
> > possible to avoid microaggressions and bias if you
simply stay
> > anonymous - is discriminatory in and of itself (if we
have an
> > environment where women have to hide who they are to
contribute, the
> > problem is the environment. Do not put the burden and
responsibility
> > of avoiding the discrimination on the people suffering
from it).
> > Moreover, people won't actually avoid the gender bias,
just the
> > extremes of it, because structures still exert their own
bias.
> >
> > And, yes, structures /might/ not impose gender bias. But our
> > structures /do/, implicitly and explicitly, in a million
ways. When we
> > have male pronouns as the default, when we have a system
that is
> > totally ignorant of the differences in sociological
conditioning
> > between different demographics (we have adversarial
dispute resolution
> > procedures and a clinical inability to control
aggressive users. How
> > do you think that meshes with Western, at least, gender
> > essentialism?), we have a structure imposing gender bias.
> >
> > And that's the structure that we have, and arguing that
there might be
> > a universe in which this doesn't happen is not a useful
argument to
> > make. It's akin to dealing with an inferno in an
apartment building by
> > showing up and pointing out that, /strictly speaking/,
buildings don't
> > /have/ to be on fire. It's, you know, true, and that's
nice, but it's
> > not particularly applicable when our building quite
clearly /is/ on
> > fire.
> >
> > So let's get back to brainstorming on how we improve the
data we have
> > in this field, and our understanding of the dynamics and
biases and
> > makeup of the community, and away from "there could be a
community
> > somewhere where these problems are moot", please.
> >
> > On 7 March 2015 at 16:05, Sam Katz <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> people's gender. does knowing someone's gender increase
bias? My guess
> >> based on the real life experiments is yes.
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:23 PM, <***@w4w.net>
wrote:
> >>> when what is known? gender discrimination?
> >>>
> >>> ---------- Original Message -----------
> >>> From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
> >>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> >>> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>> Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:28:55 -0600
> >>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> >>> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>>
> >>>> does a wiki have single authorship (like the
> >>>> original britannica) or multiple authorship? does
> >>>> it value anonymity? is gender discrimination more
> >>>> likely when it is known?
> >>>>
> >>>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM,
> >>>> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >>>> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
> >>>> >
> >>>> > why not for a wiki like Wikipedia?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a
> >>> ton harder" to deal
> >>>> > with?
> >>>> >
> >>>> > thanks,
> >>>> > Claudia
> >>>> >
> >>>> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> >>>> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
> >>>> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> >>> <wiki-research-
> >>>> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>>> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:22 -0600
> >>>> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> >>> stats Re: Fwd:
> >>>> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> It seems to me you are extrapolating from
> >>>> >> insufficient data. identity and presentation are
> >>>> >> not the same thing, but I guess the question in
> >>>> >> this context is "what is presentation in an online
> >>>> >> setting?" "how is gender shown in an online setting?"
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have
> >>>> >> "in a wiki like wikipedia" and it's a ton harder.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> --Sam
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM,
> >>>> >> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >>>> >> > yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > in attacks, however, the perceived gender is
probably
> >>> more
> >>>> >> > important than how the attacked user might identify
> >>> (or not)
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > and again, this might be one of the reasons why
people
> >>>> >> > identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining
> >>> surveys
> >>>> >> > and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they
> >>> "are" -
> >>>> >> > just like many others who do not identify as (e.g.,
> >>>> >> > heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less
> >>> safe if
> >>>> >> > they say anything about their gender/s or sexual
> >>>> >> > identity/identities... how come?
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in
> >>> hegemonic
> >>>> >> > positions would be willing to switch
perspectives for a
> >>>> >> > minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less
than
> >>> 20%" -
> >>>> >> > posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done
> >>> away with,
> >>>> >> > I guess
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > as for another attempt at switching one's
> >>> perspective, who
> >>>> >> > are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people?
or fluid
> >>>> >> > identities, maybe?
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > best, Claudia
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> >>>> >> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
> >>>> >> > To:***@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia
> >>> content
> >>>> >> > and communities
<wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>>> >> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600
> >>>> >> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
gender
> >>>> >> > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> >> To those following:
> >>>> >> >> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The
> >>>> >> >> question of whether written communication has a
> >>>> >> >> different way of relating than oral, in the
> >>>> >> >> context of a wiki, which by definition is
> >>>> >> >> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous
> >>>> >> >> editing, is a valid question.
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> Anonymity and pen names were first used often
> >>>> >> >> times by women.
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> I will also note that in terms of interface biases,
> >>>> >> >> Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
> >>>> >> >> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
> >>>> >> >> show what users have posted do worse than
> >>>> >> >> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
> >>>> >> >> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
> >>>> >> >> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
> >>>> >> >> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
> >>>> >> >> an important discussion to have.
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
> >>>> >> >> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> >> >> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
> >>>> >> >> >
> >>>> >> >> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely
> >>> in real
> >>>> >> > life and online.
> >>>> >> >> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters
> >>> addressed
> >>>> >> > to "Dr Sir" etc.
> >>>> >> >> >
> >>>> >> >> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real
> >>> life,
> >>>> >> > it has got somewhat
> >>>> >> >> > better over the years. But getting involved in
> >>> Wikipedia
> >>>> >> > and its discussions
> >>>> >> >> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we
> >>> really
> >>>> >> > have a gender gap?"
> >>>> >> >> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
> >>>> >> >> >
> >>>> >> >> > Kerry
> >>>> >> >> >
> >>>> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >>>> >> >> > From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> >> >> >
> >>> [mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> >>>> >> > Behalf Of Sam Katz
> >>>> >> >> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
> >>>> >> >> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and
communities
> >>>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
> >>> gender
> >>>> >> > stats Re: Fwd:
> >>>> >> >> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>>> >> >> >
> >>>> >> >> > hey,
> >>>> >> >> >
> >>>> >> >> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that
> >>> gender
> >>>> >> > expression
> >>>> >> >> > online or indeed expression in general is the
same
> >>> as it
> >>>> >> > is in real
> >>>> >> >> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically
what you are
> >>>> >> > trying to
> >>>> >> >> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents,
that
> >>>> >> > indeed it may not
> >>>> >> >> > have a gender bias directly if the structure
does not
> >>>> >> > impose it.
> >>>> >> >> >
> >>>> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM,
<***@w4w.net>
> >>>> >> > wrote:
> >>>> >> >> >> Hi Frances,
> >>>> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language
> >>> where
> >>>> >> >> >> personal nouns are gendered will always
display the
> >>>> >> >> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just
tested it
> >>>> >> > from a
> >>>> >> >> >> new dummy account.
> >>>> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and
> >>> especially so
> >>>> >> >> >> because community majority has not seen to
> >>> changing that
> >>>> >> >> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it
seems.
> >>>> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my
> >>> cautious note
> >>>> >> >> >> on gender stats
> >>>> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> >> best,
> >>>> >> >> >> Claudia
> >>>> >> >> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> >>>> >> >> >> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
> >>>> >> >> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and
communities
> >>>> >> >> >> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>>> >> >> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
> >>>> >> >> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
> >>> gender
> >>>> >> >> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>>> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
> >>>> >> >> >>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
> >>>> >> >> >>>
> >>>> >> >> >>> >
> >>>> >> >> >>> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
writes:
> >>>> >> >> >>> >
> >>>> >> >> >>> > > One change that could address the latter
> >>> incentive is
> >>>> >> >> >> to change the
> >>>> >> >> >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine
> >>> grammatical
> >>>> >> >> >> gender is not the
> >>>> >> >> >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly
> >>> assigned,
> >>>> >> >> >> and then some men
> >>>> >> >> >>> > as
> >>>> >> >> >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive
> >>> to set
> >>>> >> >> >> their gender
> >>>> >> >> >>> > preferences.
> >>>> >> >> >>> >
> >>>> >> >> >>> > That's how it currently works, according to
> >>> the manual,
> >>>> >> >> >> with the default
> >>>> >> >> >>> > gender set to 'unknown':
> >>>> >> >> >>> >
> >>>> >> >
> >>> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
> >>>> >> >> >>> >
> >>>> >> >> >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or
> >>> what's in
> >>>> >> >> >> effect on
> >>>> >> >> >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
> >>>> >> >> >>> >
> >>>> >> >> >>>
> >>>> >> >> >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
> >>>> >> >> >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm
wrong--
> >>>> >> >> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
> >>>> >> >> >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
> >>>> >> >> >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
> >>>> >> >> >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user
doesn't
> >>>> >> >> >>> need to change his gender in preferences in
order
> >>>> >> >> >>> to be described accurately where a female user
> >>>> >> >> >>> would need to set her gender in order to be
> >>>> >> >> >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
> >>>> >> >> >>> incentives, and ones that could be
addressed with
> >>>> >> >> >>> different default behavior for an "unknown"
user.
> >>>> >> >> >>>
> >>>> >> >> >>> -Frances
> >>>> >> >> >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>>> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>> >> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> >> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> >> >> >>
> >>>> >> >
> >>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>> >> >> >
> >>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> >> >> >
> >>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>> >> >> >
> >>>> >> >> >
> >>>> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> >> >> >
> >>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>> >> >>
> >>>> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> >>>> >> >> research-l
> >>>> >> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > _______________________________________________
> >>>> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> >> >
> >>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> >>>> >> research-l
> >>>> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>>> >
> >>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> >>>> research-l
> >>> ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Keyes
> > Research Analyst
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
k***@w4w.net
2015-03-08 07:26:20 UTC
Permalink
Hi Sam and all,

> real life experiments

why not describe their rationale, their setting, the
variables, if people knew they were producing data for your
experiment etc.

> does knowing someone's gender increase bias?

I'd say the outcome depends on cultural factors, e.g., bias
is likely to be the higher in people who have the cultural
habit of counting just two genders, for example

hi all,

Kerry said Wikipedia feels like being back in the 70s, early
70s, I'd say
my feeling is: gender stats based on two genders only (let
me reiterate this point) is a no go if you want to enable
and encourage change. Gender gap should not be a singular:
there are more than just two genders

let us take a look at the Wikipedia default in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences

it knows of options, but these are:

x prefer not to say
x I am female
x I am male

so, here, the default setting is a binary plus
odd-person-out, and that is placed at the top; if you do
nothing, the first box is ticked

luckily, newcomers neither see it at the start nor do they
have to relate to this issue at all. Yet, if you do nothing,
your user account is still being set in relation to a gender
binary systemic bias

one might do some research into this and ask newcomers (by
age group, maybe) what they feel when seeing this. But I
would prefer not to draw any attention to this systemic
default at all

anyway, what does this say about gender awareness among the
users/staff(?) who may not even see this as an incident of
Wikipedia's systemic bias?

and yes, even if this was not your intended meaning of the
question:

>> is gender discrimination more likely when it is known?

I'd say: when gender discrimination is known, it is more
likely that gender discrimination is part of the game...
currently, wiht the Inspire Campaign, gender discrimination
is being -- well -- advertised, in a way: with female users
being singled out as a minority among Wikipedia editors - so
what effect is to be expected in this light, given that an
alleged majority of male* Wikipedians read this banner
several times these days?

opinions?

so how to encourage change without drawing attention to
"gender gap" in the singular only?

how bring change without feeding into a worldview that is
itself aprt of the problem?

opinions?

cheers,
Claudia
---------- Original Message -----------
From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 15:05:26 -0600
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> people's gender. does knowing someone's gender
> increase bias? My guess based on the real life
> experiments is yes.
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:23 PM,
> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > when what is known? gender discrimination?
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> > <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:28:55 -0600
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> >> does a wiki have single authorship (like the
> >> original britannica) or multiple authorship? does
> >> it value anonymity? is gender discrimination more
> >> likely when it is known?
> >>
> >> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM,
> >> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
> >> >
> >> > why not for a wiki like Wikipedia?
> >> >
> >> > and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a
> > ton harder" to deal
> >> > with?
> >> >
> >> > thanks,
> >> > Claudia
> >> >
> >> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> >> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
> >> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> > <wiki-research-
> >> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:22 -0600
> >> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> > stats Re: Fwd:
> >> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >> >
> >> >> It seems to me you are extrapolating from
> >> >> insufficient data. identity and presentation are
> >> >> not the same thing, but I guess the question in
> >> >> this context is "what is presentation in an online
> >> >> setting?" "how is gender shown in an online setting?"
> >> >>
> >> >> That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have
> >> >> "in a wiki like wikipedia" and it's a ton harder.
> >> >>
> >> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> --Sam
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM,
> >> >> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >> >> > yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting
> >> >> >
> >> >> > in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably
> > more
> >> >> > important than how the attacked user might identify
> > (or not)
> >> >> >
> >> >> > and again, this might be one of the reasons why people
> >> >> > identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining
> > surveys
> >> >> > and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they
> > "are" -
> >> >> > just like many others who do not identify as (e.g.,
> >> >> > heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less
> > safe if
> >> >> > they say anything about their gender/s or sexual
> >> >> > identity/identities... how come?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in
> > hegemonic
> >> >> > positions would be willing to switch perspectives
for a
> >> >> > minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than
> > 20%" -
> >> >> > posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done
> > away with,
> >> >> > I guess
> >> >> >
> >> >> > as for another attempt at switching one's
> > perspective, who
> >> >> > are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or
fluid
> >> >> > identities, maybe?
> >> >> >
> >> >> > best, Claudia
> >> >> >
> >> >> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> >> >> > From:Sam Katz <***@gmail.com>
> >> >> > To:***@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia
> > content
> >> >> > and communities <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> >> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600
> >> >> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
gender
> >> >> > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> To those following:
> >> >> >> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The
> >> >> >> question of whether written communication has a
> >> >> >> different way of relating than oral, in the
> >> >> >> context of a wiki, which by definition is
> >> >> >> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous
> >> >> >> editing, is a valid question.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Anonymity and pen names were first used often
> >> >> >> times by women.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> I will also note that in terms of interface biases,
> >> >> >> Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
> >> >> >> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
> >> >> >> show what users have posted do worse than
> >> >> >> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
> >> >> >> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
> >> >> >> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
> >> >> >> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
> >> >> >> an important discussion to have.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
> >> >> >> <***@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely
> > in real
> >> >> > life and online.
> >> >> >> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters
> > addressed
> >> >> > to "Dr Sir" etc.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real
> > life,
> >> >> > it has got somewhat
> >> >> >> > better over the years. But getting involved in
> > Wikipedia
> >> >> > and its discussions
> >> >> >> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we
> > really
> >> >> > have a gender gap?"
> >> >> >> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > Kerry
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > -----Original Message-----
> >> >> >> > From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> >> >
> > [mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> >> >> > Behalf Of Sam Katz
> >> >> >> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
> >> >> >> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> >> >> >> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
> > gender
> >> >> > stats Re: Fwd:
> >> >> >> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > hey,
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that
> > gender
> >> >> > expression
> >> >> >> > online or indeed expression in general is the same
> > as it
> >> >> > is in real
> >> >> >> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what
you are
> >> >> > trying to
> >> >> >> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that
> >> >> > indeed it may not
> >> >> >> > have a gender bias directly if the structure
does not
> >> >> > impose it.
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM,
<***@w4w.net>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> >> Hi Frances,
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language
> > where
> >> >> >> >> personal nouns are gendered will always
display the
> >> >> >> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just
tested it
> >> >> > from a
> >> >> >> >> new dummy account.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and
> > especially so
> >> >> >> >> because community majority has not seen to
> > changing that
> >> >> >> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it
seems.
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my
> > cautious note
> >> >> >> >> on gender stats
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> best,
> >> >> >> >> Claudia
> >> >> >> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> >> >> >> >> From:Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org>
> >> >> >> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> >> >> >> >> <wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> >> >> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
> >> >> >> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
> > gender
> >> >> >> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
> >> >> >> >>> <***@anadrome.org> wrote:
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >> >>> > Frances Hocutt <***@wikimedia.org> writes:
> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >> >>> > > One change that could address the latter
> > incentive is
> >> >> >> >> to change the
> >> >> >> >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine
> > grammatical
> >> >> >> >> gender is not the
> >> >> >> >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly
> > assigned,
> >> >> >> >> and then some men
> >> >> >> >>> > as
> >> >> >> >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive
> > to set
> >> >> >> >> their gender
> >> >> >> >>> > preferences.
> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >> >>> > That's how it currently works, according to
> > the manual,
> >> >> >> >> with the default
> >> >> >> >>> > gender set to 'unknown':
> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >
> > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >> >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or
> > what's in
> >> >> >> >> effect on
> >> >> >> >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
> >> >> >> >>> >
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
> >> >> >> >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm
wrong--
> >> >> >> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
> >> >> >> >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
> >> >> >> >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
> >> >> >> >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
> >> >> >> >>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
> >> >> >> >>> to be described accurately where a female user
> >> >> >> >>> would need to set her gender in order to be
> >> >> >> >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
> >> >> >> >>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
> >> >> >> >>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
> >> >> >> >>>
> >> >> >> >>> -Frances
> >> >> >> >> ------- End of Original Message -------
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> >> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> >> >>
> >> >> >
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> >> >
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> >
> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> >> >
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> >> >> >> research-l
> >> >> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >> >> >
> >> >> >
> >> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> >
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >> >>
> >> >> _______________________________________________
> >> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> >> >> research-l
> >> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> >> research-l
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
Federico Leva (Nemo)
2015-02-17 07:38:38 UTC
Permalink
aaron shaw, 17/02/2015 05:50:
>
> If we want to have a more precise sense of the demographics of
> participants the biggest need in this space is simply higher quality
> survey data. My paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why the 2008
> editor survey (and all subsequent editor surveys, to my knowledge) has
> some profound limitations.

Speaking of which, the WMF doesn't have resources to appropriately
process the 2012 survey data, so results aren't available yet. Did you
consider offering them to take care of it, at least for the gendergap
number? You would then be able to publish an update.
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#Looking_for_survey_results

Nemo
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-15 06:48:25 UTC
Permalink
Hi GerardM,

why not have a guess ;-)

Claudia
---------- Original Message -----------
From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hoi,
> What year are we living ?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 14 February 2015 at 17:24,
> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>
> > my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary paradigm),
> > well...
> >
> > I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful considerations,
> >
> > author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
ethnography
> > of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> >
> > Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 percent of
> > all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This figure
> > may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
> > advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 complete
and
> > valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more likely to
> > respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations of
> > gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011)
may be
> > distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender in a
> > community perceived as male dominated."
> >
> > additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also described
> > by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one quoted
above)
> > is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist any
> > changes;
> >
> > and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as
> > "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
rewarding,
> > and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not
least
> > quote from them persistently, too...
> >
> > any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia
> > ***@w4w.net
> > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> > > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > > that could benefit Yana
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > > to increase the participation of women within
> > > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >
> > > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > > (translated to English) are here:
> >
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > f
> > >
> > > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > > would not say (page 26)
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Yana
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Gendergap mailing list
> > > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
> > please
> > > > visit:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > > >
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
------- End of Original Message -------
Gerard Meijssen
2015-02-15 07:05:24 UTC
Permalink
Hoi,
Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk about diversity, it is
because it was recognised as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted
in 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give us a clue if the
problem is as bad, worse or very much improved. Consequently it is very
much beside the point.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 15 February 2015 at 07:48, <***@w4w.net> wrote:

> Hi GerardM,
>
> why not have a guess ;-)
>
> Claudia
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
> > Hoi,
> > What year are we living ?
> > Thanks,
> > GerardM
> >
> > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24,
> > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >
> > > my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary paradigm),
> > > well...
> > >
> > > I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> considerations,
> > >
> > > author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
> ethnography
> > > of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> > >
> > > Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > > "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 percent of
> > > all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This
> figure
> > > may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
> > > advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 complete
> and
> > > valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more likely
> to
> > > respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations of
> > > gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011)
> may be
> > > distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender in
> a
> > > community perceived as male dominated."
> > >
> > > additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also described
> > > by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one quoted
> above)
> > > is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist any
> > > changes;
> > >
> > > and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as
> > > "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
> rewarding,
> > > and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not
> least
> > > quote from them persistently, too...
> > >
> > > any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Claudia
> > > ***@w4w.net
> > > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > >
> > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > > Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > >
> > > > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > > > that could benefit Yana
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > > > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > > > to increase the participation of women within
> > > > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > >
> > > > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > > > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > > > (translated to English) are here:
> > >
> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > > f
> > > >
> > > > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > > > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > > > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > > > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > > > would not say (page 26)
> > > >
> > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > > > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi all,
> > > > >
> > > > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers?
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Yana
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Gendergap mailing list
> > > > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
> > > please
> > > > > visit:
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > > > >
> > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> > >
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-15 08:34:17 UTC
Permalink
ah, thanks, GerardM,

so -- if I read your reaction correctly -- the underlying hypothesis on which it
is based says that much has changed (or may have) since those old days?
What information do you base this hypothesis on?

my main point, anyway, is to cast a doubt as to the methods used in such
statistical work and interpretation of the outcome, any comments on that?

see also "Clearly, we need to measure some things, but we also need to be
highly skeptical of what we choose to measure, how we do so, and what we
do with the resulting data." Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (17 December 2014),
Measure, manage, manipulate,
http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/measure-manage-manipulate.html

best,
Claudia
***@w4w.net
My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
---------- Original Message -----------
From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:05:24 +0100
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hoi,
> Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk
> about diversity, it is because it was recognised
> as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in
> 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give
> us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very
> much improved. Consequently it is very much beside
> the point. Thanks, GerardM
>
> On 15 February 2015 at 07:48,
> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi GerardM,
> >
> > why not have a guess ;-)
> >
> > Claudia
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > What year are we living ?
> > > Thanks,
> > > GerardM
> > >
> > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24,
> > > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
paradigm),
> > > > well...
> > > >
> > > > I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> > considerations,
> > > >
> > > > author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
> > ethnography
> > > > of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> > > >
> > > > Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > > > "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
percent of
> > > > all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This
> > figure
> > > > may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
> > > > advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
complete
> > and
> > > > valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more likely
> > to
> > > > respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations
of
> > > > gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011)
> > may be
> > > > distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender
in
> > a
> > > > community perceived as male dominated."
> > > >
> > > > additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also described
> > > > by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one
quoted
> > above)
> > > > is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist
any
> > > > changes;
> > > >
> > > > and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as
> > > > "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
> > rewarding,
> > > > and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not
> > least
> > > > quote from them persistently, too...
> > > >
> > > > any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> > > >
> > > > best,
> > > > Claudia
> > > > ***@w4w.net
> > > > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > > From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
> > > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > > > Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > >
> > > > > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > > > > that could benefit Yana
> > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > > > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > > > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > > > > to increase the participation of women within
> > > > > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > > > > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > > > > (translated to English) are here:
> > > >
> >
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > > > f
> > > > >
> > > > > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > > > > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > > > > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > > > > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > > > > would not say (page 26)
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > > > > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
readers?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > Yana
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Gendergap mailing list
> > > > > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
unsubscribing,
> > > > please
> > > > > > visit:
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > > > > >
> > > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
------- End of Original Message -------
Gerard Meijssen
2015-02-15 10:37:21 UTC
Permalink
Hoi,
Where you say that we need to be careful with such things, the phenomenon
has been recognised. It is receiving attention and there have been plenty
signals that it has been taken up all over the world. It deserves continued
attention but we need to learn about this process. Quoting from research
that is old does not serve a purpose.

Arguably the coverage of the politics of Djibouti is not as good as the
politics of Chicago.That is easy to recognise and it is relatively easy to
understand how and if this issue is appreciated as such. One easy way to
recognise that it is not really "hot" is that there is no research about it.
Thanks,
GerardM

PS currently there are at least 388991 articles about women [1]\

1
http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?q=claim%5B31%3A5%5D%20and%20claim%5B21%3A6581072%5D

On 15 February 2015 at 09:34, <***@w4w.net> wrote:

> ah, thanks, GerardM,
>
> so -- if I read your reaction correctly -- the underlying hypothesis on
> which it
> is based says that much has changed (or may have) since those old days?
> What information do you base this hypothesis on?
>
> my main point, anyway, is to cast a doubt as to the methods used in such
> statistical work and interpretation of the outcome, any comments on that?
>
> see also "Clearly, we need to measure some things, but we also need to be
> highly skeptical of what we choose to measure, how we do so, and what we
> do with the resulting data." Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (17 December 2014),
> Measure, manage, manipulate,
> http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/measure-manage-manipulate.html
>
> best,
> Claudia
> ***@w4w.net
> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:05:24 +0100
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
> > Hoi,
> > Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk
> > about diversity, it is because it was recognised
> > as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in
> > 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give
> > us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very
> > much improved. Consequently it is very much beside
> > the point. Thanks, GerardM
> >
> > On 15 February 2015 at 07:48,
> > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi GerardM,
> > >
> > > why not have a guess ;-)
> > >
> > > Claudia
> > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100
> > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > What year are we living ?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24,
> > > > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
> paradigm),
> > > > > well...
> > > > >
> > > > > I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> > > considerations,
> > > > >
> > > > > author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
> > > ethnography
> > > > > of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> > > > >
> > > > > Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > > > > "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
> percent of
> > > > > all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This
> > > figure
> > > > > may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
> > > > > advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
> complete
> > > and
> > > > > valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
> likely
> > > to
> > > > > respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of
> self-declarations
> of
> > > > > gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011)
> > > may be
> > > > > distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender
> in
> > > a
> > > > > community perceived as male dominated."
> > > > >
> > > > > additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
> described
> > > > > by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one
> quoted
> > > above)
> > > > > is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist
> any
> > > > > changes;
> > > > >
> > > > > and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived
> as
> > > > > "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
> > > rewarding,
> > > > > and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not
> > > least
> > > > > quote from them persistently, too...
> > > > >
> > > > > any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> > > > >
> > > > > best,
> > > > > Claudia
> > > > > ***@w4w.net
> > > > > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > > > From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
> research-
> > > > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > > > > Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > > >
> > > > > > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > > > > > that could benefit Yana
> > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > > > > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > > > > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > > > > > to increase the participation of women within
> > > > > > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > > > > > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > > > > > (translated to English) are here:
> > > > >
> > >
> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > > > > f
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > > > > > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > > > > > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > > > > > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > > > > > would not say (page 26)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > > > > > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
> readers?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Yana
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Gendergap mailing list
> > > > > > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
> unsubscribing,
> > > > > please
> > > > > > > visit:
> > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > > > > > >
> > > > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
k***@w4w.net
2015-02-15 11:03:16 UTC
Permalink
Hi GerardM,

two questions come to mind re your mail:

is your reply (esp. in the second part) a statement about something like
"enoughness"?

what does any number of a certain kind of articles in any version have to do
with the issue at hand?

and here's two hypotheses:

1. the relevance of research cannot always be judged by its year of
publication alone

2. hotness of a topic is most likely nothing much more than a qualifier
relative to social and financial factors
from which follows that scientific inquiry is no "neutral" business but
dependent on categories like "effect of gender relations in a given field of
inquiry including the motivations underlying any decisions on the part of its
sponsors"

best,
Claudia

---------- Original Message -----------
From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:37:21 +0100
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hoi,
> Where you say that we need to be careful with such
> things, the phenomenon has been recognised. It is
> receiving attention and there have been plenty
> signals that it has been taken up all over the
> world. It deserves continued attention but we need
> to learn about this process. Quoting from research
> that is old does not serve a purpose.
>
> Arguably the coverage of the politics of Djibouti
> is not as good as the politics of Chicago.That is
> easy to recognise and it is relatively easy to
> understand how and if this issue is appreciated as
> such. One easy way to recognise that it is not
> really "hot" is that there is no research about
> it. Thanks, GerardM
>
> PS currently there are at least 388991 articles
> about women [1]\
>
> 1
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?
q=claim%5B31%3A5%5D%20and%20claim%5B21%3A6581072%5D
>
> On 15 February 2015 at 09:34,
> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>
> > ah, thanks, GerardM,
> >
> > so -- if I read your reaction correctly -- the underlying hypothesis on
> > which it
> > is based says that much has changed (or may have) since those old
days?
> > What information do you base this hypothesis on?
> >
> > my main point, anyway, is to cast a doubt as to the methods used in
such
> > statistical work and interpretation of the outcome, any comments on
that?
> >
> > see also "Clearly, we need to measure some things, but we also need to
be
> > highly skeptical of what we choose to measure, how we do so, and what
we
> > do with the resulting data." Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (17 December 2014),
> > Measure, manage, manipulate,
> > http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/measure-manage-
manipulate.html
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia
> > ***@w4w.net
> > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:05:24 +0100
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk
> > > about diversity, it is because it was recognised
> > > as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in
> > > 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give
> > > us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very
> > > much improved. Consequently it is very much beside
> > > the point. Thanks, GerardM
> > >
> > > On 15 February 2015 at 07:48,
> > > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi GerardM,
> > > >
> > > > why not have a guess ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Claudia
> > > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > > From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
> > > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
> > > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100
> > > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
Fwd:
> > > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > What year are we living ?
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24,
> > > > > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
> > paradigm),
> > > > > > well...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> > > > considerations,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
> > > > ethnography
> > > > > > of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > > > > > "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
> > percent of
> > > > > > all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011]
This
> > > > figure
> > > > > > may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online
survey
> > > > > > advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
> > complete
> > > > and
> > > > > > valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
> > likely
> > > > to
> > > > > > respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of
> > self-declarations
> > of
> > > > > > gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al.
2011)
> > > > may be
> > > > > > distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their
gender
> > in
> > > > a
> > > > > > community perceived as male dominated."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
> > described
> > > > > > by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one
> > quoted
> > > > above)
> > > > > > is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to
resist
> > any
> > > > > > changes;
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and, last but not least, one might argue that the group
perceived
> > as
> > > > > > "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes
most
> > > > rewarding,
> > > > > > and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible
and not
> > > > least
> > > > > > quote from them persistently, too...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > best,
> > > > > > Claudia
> > > > > > ***@w4w.net
> > > > > > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > > > > From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > > > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
> > research-
> > > > > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > > > > > Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > > > > > > that could benefit Yana
> > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > > > > > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > > > > > > to increase the participation of women within
> > > > > > > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > > > > > > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > > > > > > (translated to English) are here:
> > > > > >
> > > >
> >
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > > > > > f
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > > > > > > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > > > > > > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > > > > > > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > > > > > > would not say (page 26)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > > > > > > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
> > readers?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > Yana
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > Gendergap mailing list
> > > > > > > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
> > unsubscribing,
> > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > visit:
> > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > >
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
------- End of Original Message -------
Gerard Meijssen
2015-02-15 12:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Hoi,
It is enough when nothing new is added to the discussion. So I am looking
for new data that points in a change in diversity ie the ratio between male
and female contributors.The number of items in Wikidata about males and
females is one indicator that may change over time. It can be seen as an
indicator how our projects become more or less woman friendly. NB I
published the number of items about men or women quite regularly and THAT
makes mentioning it more or less relevant.

While I agree that some studies maintain there relevance. They only reflect
a point in time. What I care for is to learn how things change. To do that
it is relevant to know HOW research came to a result so that the same
routines can be run again. Arguably most research even published research
is as good as the reputation of the person who published it. I care about
numbers and research that is operational; that can be used in a practical
way. Consequently the number of "human" that do not have a gender is
relevant over time because it indicates how we are doing with such relevant
information.

Hotness is fine. When numbers are produced and the numbers indicate a
specific point, it makes little difference when the consequences are not
accepted. It is often said that the diversity that exists between the
Anglophile world and the rest of the world is way too big. Given the number
of people involved it seems obvious that we are not gaining any ground
towards more balanced information in ALL of our projects.
Thanks,
GerardM

On 15 February 2015 at 12:03, <***@w4w.net> wrote:

> Hi GerardM,
>
> two questions come to mind re your mail:
>
> is your reply (esp. in the second part) a statement about something like
> "enoughness"?
>
> what does any number of a certain kind of articles in any version have to
> do
> with the issue at hand?
>
> and here's two hypotheses:
>
> 1. the relevance of research cannot always be judged by its year of
> publication alone
>
> 2. hotness of a topic is most likely nothing much more than a qualifier
> relative to social and financial factors
> from which follows that scientific inquiry is no "neutral" business but
> dependent on categories like "effect of gender relations in a given field
> of
> inquiry including the motivations underlying any decisions on the part of
> its
> sponsors"
>
> best,
> Claudia
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:37:21 +0100
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
> > Hoi,
> > Where you say that we need to be careful with such
> > things, the phenomenon has been recognised. It is
> > receiving attention and there have been plenty
> > signals that it has been taken up all over the
> > world. It deserves continued attention but we need
> > to learn about this process. Quoting from research
> > that is old does not serve a purpose.
> >
> > Arguably the coverage of the politics of Djibouti
> > is not as good as the politics of Chicago.That is
> > easy to recognise and it is relatively easy to
> > understand how and if this issue is appreciated as
> > such. One easy way to recognise that it is not
> > really "hot" is that there is no research about
> > it. Thanks, GerardM
> >
> > PS currently there are at least 388991 articles
> > about women [1]\
> >
> > 1
> > http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?
> q=claim%5B31%3A5%5D%20and%20claim%5B21%3A6581072%5D
> >
> > On 15 February 2015 at 09:34,
> > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> >
> > > ah, thanks, GerardM,
> > >
> > > so -- if I read your reaction correctly -- the underlying hypothesis on
> > > which it
> > > is based says that much has changed (or may have) since those old
> days?
> > > What information do you base this hypothesis on?
> > >
> > > my main point, anyway, is to cast a doubt as to the methods used in
> such
> > > statistical work and interpretation of the outcome, any comments on
> that?
> > >
> > > see also "Clearly, we need to measure some things, but we also need to
> be
> > > highly skeptical of what we choose to measure, how we do so, and what
> we
> > > do with the resulting data." Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (17 December 2014),
> > > Measure, manage, manipulate,
> > > http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/measure-manage-
> manipulate.html
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Claudia
> > > ***@w4w.net
> > > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:05:24 +0100
> > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk
> > > > about diversity, it is because it was recognised
> > > > as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in
> > > > 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give
> > > > us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very
> > > > much improved. Consequently it is very much beside
> > > > the point. Thanks, GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 15 February 2015 at 07:48,
> > > > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi GerardM,
> > > > >
> > > > > why not have a guess ;-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Claudia
> > > > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > > > From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
> > > > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
> research-
> > > > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100
> > > > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
> Fwd:
> > > > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > > >
> > > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > > What year are we living ?
> > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > GerardM
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24,
> > > > > > <***@w4w.net> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
> > > paradigm),
> > > > > > > well...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> > > > > considerations,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
> > > > > ethnography
> > > > > > > of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > > > > > > "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
> > > percent of
> > > > > > > all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011]
> This
> > > > > figure
> > > > > > > may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online
> survey
> > > > > > > advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
> > > complete
> > > > > and
> > > > > > > valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
> > > likely
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of
> > > self-declarations
> > > of
> > > > > > > gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al.
> 2011)
> > > > > may be
> > > > > > > distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their
> gender
> > > in
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > community perceived as male dominated."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
> > > described
> > > > > > > by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one
> > > quoted
> > > > > above)
> > > > > > > is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to
> resist
> > > any
> > > > > > > changes;
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > and, last but not least, one might argue that the group
> perceived
> > > as
> > > > > > > "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes
> most
> > > > > rewarding,
> > > > > > > and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible
> and not
> > > > > least
> > > > > > > quote from them persistently, too...
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > best,
> > > > > > > Claudia
> > > > > > > ***@w4w.net
> > > > > > > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > > > > > From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
> > > research-
> > > > > > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > > > > > > Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > > > > > > > that could benefit Yana
> > > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > > > > > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > > > > > > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > > > > > > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > > > > > > > to increase the participation of women within
> > > > > > > > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > > > > > > > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > > > > > > > (translated to English) are here:
> > > > > > >
> > > > >
> > >
> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > > > > > > f
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > > > > > > > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > > > > > > > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > > > > > > > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > > > > > > > would not say (page 26)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > > > > > > > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
> > > readers?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > > > Yana
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > > > Gendergap mailing list
> > > > > > > > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
> > > unsubscribing,
> > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > > > visit:
> > > > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > >
> > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
WereSpielChequers
2015-02-15 16:52:40 UTC
Permalink
In 2011 the project was only ten years old, four more years is time for big changes to have occurred. Changes we know something about include the repercussions of the transition from manual vandal fighting to predominately automated vandalism rejection. This may have had more subtle implications than the obvious one of the reduction in raw edit count. In 2011 we had an admin cadre still dominated by admins appointed in the era when "good vandal fighter" was sufficient qualification to pass RFA. Four years on the admin corps has changed by not changing. Roughly a fifth of our remaining admins have been appointed in the last four years, but through a process with a very different de facto criteria than before, and of course the vast majority of our admins are now four years older than in 2011. If the theory is true that vandal fighting was very attractive to teenage boys, then in 2011 our youngest admins might still not have been legally adult. Nowadays I doubt if we have many admins who are undergraduates.

Sometimes the dialogue within the movement can look like a bunch of over confident thirty something's talking at a bunch of grey beards who they think are adolescents and who think they are being hectored by young pups straight out of college. An editor survey would test theories such as the greying of the pedia, and as with any occasion when one has ones first look in the mirror after a long gap, it would tell us much about ourselves.

Another reason for doing another editor survey, and indeed a former editor's survey, is that some of us have been trying to fix the Gendergap for years, it would be nice to see if our efforts have had any impact. It could even test the theory that the community is more abrasive towards women. We know that we are less successful at recruiting female editors than male ones, I'm not sure if we have tested whether we are more successful at retaining established male editors than female ones, and if so whether we are losing women because they are lured away or driven away.

Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> On 15 Feb 2015, at 08:34, ***@w4w.net wrote:
>
> ah, thanks, GerardM,
>
> so -- if I read your reaction correctly -- the underlying hypothesis on which it
> is based says that much has changed (or may have) since those old days?
> What information do you base this hypothesis on?
>
> my main point, anyway, is to cast a doubt as to the methods used in such
> statistical work and interpretation of the outcome, any comments on that?
>
> see also "Clearly, we need to measure some things, but we also need to be
> highly skeptical of what we choose to measure, how we do so, and what we
> do with the resulting data." Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (17 December 2014),
> Measure, manage, manipulate,
> http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/measure-manage-manipulate.html
>
> best,
> Claudia
> ***@w4w.net
> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:05:24 +0100
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
>> Hoi,
>> Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk
>> about diversity, it is because it was recognised
>> as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in
>> 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give
>> us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very
>> much improved. Consequently it is very much beside
>> the point. Thanks, GerardM
>>
>> On 15 February 2015 at 07:48,
>> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi GerardM,
>>>
>>> why not have a guess ;-)
>>>
>>> Claudia
>>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>> From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
>>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100
>>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
>>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>
>>>> Hoi,
>>>> What year are we living ?
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> GerardM
>>>>
>>>> On 14 February 2015 at 17:24,
>>>> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
> paradigm),
>>>>> well...
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
>>> considerations,
>>>>>
>>>>> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
>>> ethnography
>>>>> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
>>>>>
>>>>> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
>>>>> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
> percent of
>>>>> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This
>>> figure
>>>>> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
>>>>> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
> complete
>>> and
>>>>> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more likely
>>> to
>>>>> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations
> of
>>>>> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011)
>>> may be
>>>>> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender
> in
>>> a
>>>>> community perceived as male dominated."
>>>>>
>>>>> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also described
>>>>> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one
> quoted
>>> above)
>>>>> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist
> any
>>>>> changes;
>>>>>
>>>>> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as
>>>>> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
>>> rewarding,
>>>>> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not
>>> least
>>>>> quote from them persistently, too...
>>>>>
>>>>> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
>>>>>
>>>>> best,
>>>>> Claudia
>>>>> ***@w4w.net
>>>>> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>>> From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
>>>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
> research-
>>>>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
>>>>> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>>>
>>>>>> Forwarding here in case anyone has information
>>>>>> that could benefit Yana
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
>>>>>> Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>>>> To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
>>>>>> to increase the participation of women within
>>>>>> Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
>>>>>> external party to conduct a survey and the results
>>>>>> (translated to English) are here:
> https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
>>>>> f
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The study was split into two parts; one on the
>>>>>> contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
>>>>>> Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
>>>>>> contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
>>>>>> would not say (page 26)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
>>>>>> <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
> readers?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>>> Yana
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>>>>>> ***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>>> To manage your subscription preferences, including
> unsubscribing,
>>>>> please
>>>>>>> visit:
>>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>> ------- End of Original Message -------
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Kerry Raymond
2015-02-15 22:43:34 UTC
Permalink
No data point is beside the point. It simply awaits more data points to be
beside it, so we can plot the trend.



But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this
particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
progress against that target, one has to question the point of establishing
a target.



I note that a new strategic planning exercise is taking place. It would be a
good time to encourage the thinking that strategic plans need metrics and a
framework in which selected proposals can be tested (e.g. A/B testing) to
see their impact on metrics. For example, I've suggested that we should make
"undo" a little bit harder by additionally requiring a selection of "which
policy" justifies it and a prominent warning if the user is a newbie (to try
to get some respect paid to WP:NOBITE). This has two purposes, prevents "I
don't like it" undo, provides clearer feedback to the person's whose edit is
undone (and to those of us looking on), provides better metrics about the
impact of policies and the policing of those policies, etc. Imagine if we
were also collecting a few more demographics about users. We'd then know a
whole lot more about which categories of contributors were being reverted by
which category of contributors under which policies. If we see concerning
patterns emerging, then we have the evidence to push for changes in the
policy or its policing or .



Kerry



_____

From: wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-***@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard
Meijssen
Sent: Sunday, 15 February 2015 5:05 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers



Hoi,

Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk about diversity, it is
because it was recognised as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in
2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give us a clue if the problem
is as bad, worse or very much improved. Consequently it is very much beside
the point.

Thanks,

GerardM



On 15 February 2015 at 07:48, <***@w4w.net> wrote:

Hi GerardM,

why not have a guess ;-)

Claudia
---------- Original Message -----------
From:Gerard Meijssen <***@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
***@lists.wikimedia.org>

Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hoi,
> What year are we living ?
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 14 February 2015 at 17:24,
> <***@w4w.net> wrote:
>
> > my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary paradigm),
> > well...
> >
> > I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
considerations,
> >
> > author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
ethnography
> > of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> >
> > Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 percent of
> > all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This
figure
> > may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
> > advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 complete
and
> > valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more likely
to
> > respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations of
> > gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011)
may be
> > distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender in a
> > community perceived as male dominated."
> >
> > additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also described
> > by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one quoted
above)
> > is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist any
> > changes;
> >
> > and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as
> > "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
rewarding,
> > and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not
least
> > quote from them persistently, too...
> >
> > any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia
> > ***@w4w.net
> > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From:Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> > ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> > > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > > that could benefit Yana
> > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > From: Jane Darnell <***@gmail.com>
> > > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > > to increase the participation of women within
> > > Wikimedia projects." < ***@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >
> > > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > > (translated to English) are here:
> >
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > f
> > >
> > > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > > would not say (page 26)
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > > <***@wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Yana
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > Gendergap mailing list
> > > > ***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
> > please
> > > > visit:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > > >
> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-***@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
------- End of Original Message -------
Loading...