Thank you, Sarah > Data doesn't equal patriarchy
agree, I was not stipulating this, I am pointing to the philosophy that feeds into the setup of such an inquiry in the first place > I trust the survey. up to you, Sarah which part of it do you trust? the outcome given the chosen setup? I have to reasons, either, for any doubt about the results my argument is to take a close look at the setup of any statistics exercise first and then ask, maybe, who benefits most from the results, and then we are well into partiarchally inspired politics, I guess, anyway, this is the point I am trying to make the task is, I think, to work on the following: which question would yield results that people on this list will feel motivated by to turn into sustainable positive action about a perceived gender gap among Wikipedia editors? > And having > numbers is honestly more powerful than saying "oh most editors are men." well, given Risker/Anne's statement > >> (most editors do not gender-identify ... no one knows, right? so my argument says that since most editors do not gender-identify, it would be wrong to say anything, really and hence any study of "gender gap" in Wikipedia (or any other project of its kind) had better rely on other data than these - which is why I think that in general such a discussion of basics might be useful for Laura's project, too - I'd say go for it, Laura :-) > If you'd like to talk to the organizers of the survey, I'm sure they'd be > happy to discuss it. thank you, yes, you were so kind as to give me the contact data last time I raised the issue here, for which thanks again I'd be more happy to discuss the matter more thorougly here first - or maybe anyone knows of another public forum which might be interested in this topic? > Keep in mind the survey is people stating their gender in the survey > itself, not their userspace/account. indeed, agree, and this is precisely why any implicit claims on the relevance of the results should not be writ large in our list description let us do away with looking at numbers first... as far as I can glean from discussions like the ones we do on this list, there is quite ample data other than numbers that allow us to address the phenomenon of a perceived gender gap in Wikipedia et al. and of course then take positive action to remedy any perceived imbalance best & cheers Claudia On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:35:14 -0700, Sarah Stierch wrote > Keep in mind the survey is people stating their gender in the survey > itself, not their userspace/account. When I take the survey I can choose a > gender or no response. (and maybe something else..I dont remember and I'm > on my phone..) I am sure plenty of people who do not choose gender on > their profile choose it anonymously on the profile. > > I trust the survey. Data doesn't equal patriarchy when it is the community > who is choosing to identify their gender in said survey. And having > numbers is honestly more powerful than saying "oh most editors are men." > > If you'd like to talk to the organizers of the survey, I'm sure they'd be > happy to discuss it. > > Sarah > > Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :) > > On Jun 17, 2012, at 11:22 PM, [email protected] wrote: > > > Thank you Risker/Anne > > for this statement which I think is true: > > > >> (most editors do not gender-identify ... > > http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2012-June/002876.html > > > > what follows from this is, in my opinion, that any specific-looking numbers > > the Wikimedia Foundation (e.g., > > Wikipedia editor survey) chooses to have published about how many women act > > as editors should not be > > trusted and hence not be perpetuated > > > > and best not in our list description, either... > > "The most recent Wikipedia editor survey indicates that the percentage of > > female contributors in Wikimedia > > projects is approximately nine percent." > > > > could this starting sentence be changed, maybe, to reflect the fact stated > > by Anne/Risker and not feed into > > such a seemingly negatively perceived climate in the first place? > > > > ah, yes, this is me again, trying to raise some awareness also about the > > promotional paradoxes in results > > created by patriarchally-inspired statistics exercises that purport to come > > up with facts, > > apologies if this makes you groan, maybe again, > > I will stick to my point though until I hear better arguments - which, > > certainly, I am happy to take on this > > point > > > > :-) thanks & cheers, > > Claudia > > [email protected] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gendergap mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap thanks & cheers, Claudia [email protected] _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
