Sarah, thanks > I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment.
fair enough, the "versus" reads a little strange to me in this context but never mind ;-) in my view of the matter, and my thanks to Laura for filling in with a few concrete examples, taking positive action in this context would mean, I guess, to stop talking about any numbers that we might have to consider to be harmful - precisely: harmful for swift and wonderful encouragement for *positive* action back to action, then including research ;-) Claudia On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:36:10 -0700, Sarah Stierch wrote > 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, [email protected] 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, [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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
