Well, I'll be honest: I don't really care about detailed research unless it shows our numbers changing at this point :-) (better or worse)...
I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment. So perhaps I shouldn't even bother with this conversation. We all know we have few women editing :-/ Sar Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :) On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:07 AM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: > 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 >>> koltzenb...@w4w.net >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > thanks & cheers, > Claudia > koltzenb...@w4w.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
