Hi Sue, I appreciate your thorough and quick responses:-)
It's Friday night here in Australia so I'll chew over the questions and answers over the weekend. I find sitting back and thinking things over helpful. I'm interested in what other people have to say too. regards Rosie Williams http://women4wikipedia.net http://collectiveaction.com.au @collectiveact > From: [email protected] > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:21:43 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] This list > To: [email protected] > CC: [email protected] > > Hi Rosie, > > I will take a crack at answering your questions, in-line below :-) > > > On 17 March 2011 22:41, Collective Action <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Dear Sue & All, > > > > I am yet to experience sexism on Wikipedia however my reading of this list > > has only served to confuse me with regard to the gender gap issue. I am > > hoping that someone can clarify the following points with some kind of > > authority. > > > > Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that the Gender > > gap on Wikipedia is a problem that Wikipedia is trying to solve (apparently > > with the help of this list)? > > I can't speak for the Wikipedia editorial volunteer hierarchy. But I > can speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, and yes, we believe the gender > gap is a problem that needs to be solved. Currently, 13% of Wikimedia > editors self-identify as female [1], and we've set ourselves a target > to double that by 2015. > > [1] 13% of respondents to the 2008 UNU-Merit Editor Survey said they > are female. We believe that number is probably a little off, because > although there was a healthy sample size, the methodology probably > resulted in favouring of frequent editors. So the 13% may be a little > skewed, but probably not too much. > > > > > Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that women who > > attempt to contribute to Wikipedia are likely to be subject to chronic > > sexist remarks and that this is presumed to factor into the lower > > participation rates of women? > > I don't think so, no. My personal belief (and my own experiences, and > readings on-wiki) suggest to me that Wikimedians are significantly > less overtly, explicitly sexist than non-Wikimedians. Many, many > online cultures are blatantly misogynist: Wikimedia IMO is not. I'm > not saying that sexist remarks never happen (and of course it depends > what you define as sexist): I would expect that they do. But I don't > think Wikimedia is a particularly sexualized culture; I don't think > it's a culture that tends to stereotype and objectify, and I think > most/many of the men on Wikipedia would recoil from overt sexism. > > That doesn't mean we don't behave in ways that deter women's > participation: I think it's obvious that we do [2]. But I don't think > that direct personal aggressive sexism is particularly present on > Wikipedia. > > (It might be worth knowing that in about a month, we are going to put > a new Editor Survey in the field, that includes a half-dozen questions > about gender and sexism. That will be the first time we've surveyed > editors, male and female, about their experiences and observations > with regard to gender on the Wikimedia projects. So we'll see what > gets reported.) > > > > > What is the responsibility of Wikipedia/Wikimedia in protecting individuals > > from harrassment and in particular, any systemic abuse which is believed to > > be endemic to Wikipedia? > > The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't police editors' behaviour on > Wikipedia. Policing editors' behaviour is a responsibility of the > Wikimedia editorial community, through dispute resolution mechanisms, > the Arbitration Committee, and other avenues. (There are some people > here who can talk about Arb Comm, for example.) The Wikimedia > Foundation just couldn't possibly police it: there are 100,000 editors > here working in 270+ languages, and we would never have the ability to > investigate problems, nor to enforce compliance with behavioural > standards. And ultimately, editors are online volunteers, and if they > are unhappy or feel unsafe, they always have the ability to exercise > their option to stop editing. At the end of the day, they have > alternatives. They are here by choice, and they can leave if they > want. > > Having said that, I do wish that the Wikimedia Foundation could do > more to protect editors from harassment. I believe that only a very > small number of editors has ever faced serious harassment, but I am > aware of some instances in which it's occurred. We have, in a very > small number of instances, offered advice and support of various > kinds. But we can't be responsible for people's safety on Wikipedia, > any more than Facebook, for example, can be responsible for people's > safety there. > > > > > How does Wikipedia take responsibility to ensure that when people come to > > Wikipedia to edit for the first time they are made aware of problems they > > may encounter (both due to their gender and more generally) and the actions > > they can take to address these issues? > > I think the usual advice to people joining online communities is that > they should lurk for a while, read, and get the hang of things. I'm > not aware of any special cautioning orientation materials for new > people on Wikipedia. (Although as I write this, I do actually remember > that when I first started editing, I stumbled across advice on how to > remain anonymous, whether or not to use my real name, and some other > bits and pieces. But I believe I found it by reading really widely and > deeply; it wasn't collected together in one place.) It might actually > be a really good project for this group: to aim to create a set of > help materials for new female editors. > > > > > What are the roles of the Wikimedia/Wikipedia hierarchy here on the list and > > do official representatives of these organisations have rights to determine > > the debate here that go beyond the power of other list members? > > No, I don't think so. The Wikimedia Foundation staff who are on this > list are present by their own choice, because they want to help. > No-one's been assigned to be here, and no-one has any special > authority to control the debate here. I am the list owner, and I think > there are a couple of moderators as well, but I expect everything here > will happen via consensus. I don't consider this to be a list "for" > the Wikimedia Foundation; I consider it to be a list for the people > here. > > I expect that the Wikimedia Foundation staff who are here joined > because they want to know more about what female editors want and > need. The people here from the staff are e.g., interface designers, > community staff, product/strategy people, etc. who want to take > women's views into consideration as they do their work. The women here > aren't necessarily representative of people outside this list, but I > expect staff here feel it's a good place to learn a little and maybe > kick around ideas for feedback. > > > > > What, if any quality assaurance guidelines, structure or policy is behind > > this list and the goal of reducing the gender gap on Wikipedia and the > > relationship between the two? > > I'm not sure exactly what that question means, but I'll take a crack > at it, and you can tell me if I've misunderstood what you're asking. > There are no formal guidelines/structure/policy behind the list. > Wikimedia lists typically operate in accordance within a set of loose > conventions: basically, informal 'folk wisdom' -- AFAIK they've never > been documented anywhere, and I myself learned them through > observation over time. Generally speaking, with some partial > exceptions: most of our lists are open to the public, anyone can join > or leave any time, people are asked to remain civil but there is wide > latitude for disagreement and debate, and off-topic discussion is > discouraged but not entirely verboten. Some lists have expectations of > privacy, but the archives for this list are public, so there should be > no expectation of privacy here. > > Is that useful? It's funny: as I write all that I realize that of > course none of it is obvious to people who haven't spent a lot of time > in the Wikimedia community: you're reminding me of how frustrated I > was three or four years ago, as I learned all those informal, > unwritten, undocumented conventions. We really have a lot of work to > do, if we want Wikimedia to become more porous, more penetrable :-) > > Anyway Rosie, I hope this helps. Feel free to follow up if anything's > unclear, or if you think we should adjust/adapt, feel free to say that > too. Other people should elaborate/refine my answers too, if they want > :-) > > Thanks, > Sue > > > [2] Oh, I wanted to add this. Although I don't believe explicit overt > sexism is particularly present on Wikipedia, I do think women face > particular impediments due to their gender. > > The Wikimedia Foundation has identified a number of challenges that > deter people from wanting to edit: the editing interface is too hard > to use; deletions and reversions are climbing; the culture can be > fighty; the culture isn't very welcoming/encouraging/supportive; and > there are a lot of editorial policies and practices that people need > to learn, in order to edit effectively. And, we speculate that there > may be three issues particular to women, that explain their > disproportionately low presence. > > * Some studies say women self-report as less technically confident > than men. And, some research suggests that women may generally be > inclined to use technology as a tool for working, with men generally > more inclined to use it for fun. To the extent that this is true, > MediaWiki’s lack of usability may have a disproportionately deterring > effect on women. To be clear: the problem is the same for everyone, > but it may affect women, on the whole, more than men. Obviously this > isn't the case for existing, experienced female editors. > > * Research finds that women generally are more attuned to social cues > than men: more damaged by disapproval, and more buoyed by support. We > know that successful Wikimedians, whatever their gender, tend to be > unusually insensitive to reproach. This suggests that in general women > may tend to feel the lack of affirmation on Wikipedia more keenly than > men do, and that warnings, reversions/deletions and a fighty culture > may disproportionately deter women. This means that efforts to > increase friendliness and a sense of warmth, and to reduce fightyness, > will disproportionately increase retention of women. This problem is > also the same for everyone, but may affect women somewhat more than it > does men. > > * Deletions and reversions are damaging to all new editors, and may > disproportionately damage women due to their attunement to social > cues. However, it’s also possible that women’s contributions are in > fact likelier than men’s to be unfairly reverted/deleted, due to > systemic bias. This is a theory: there’s no hard data to support it. > But it seems reasonable to assume that when editorial decisions (e.g., > determining notability, relevance, appropriate weight, neutrality, > reliability of sources) are made primarily by men, women’s > contributions may be likelier than men’s to be deemed non-notable, not > relevant, inappropriately weighted, non-neutral or cited with > unreliable sources. Certainly there is anecdotal evidence suggesting > this is true: in the wake of the New York Times gender gap story, many > women told stories online, in blog comments and discussion forums, > saying this had happened to them.
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
