Per Fae's message: >>OOPS,
>>Absolutely correct, I had a programme error. Re-running this gives a >>more credible set of numbers: >>Total voted: 590 >>Total identified with gender: 255 >>Male 224 >>Female 31 >>So open males = 38%, open females = 5%. Which indicates that a good >>*guesstimate* of the number of women voting was 11%. >>I might also have skipped a voter, I think there should be 591, but I >>have given up on debugging that one. >>Fae I compiled an alphabetical list of voters for the thread on the Arbcom election at Wikipediocracy yesterday. I also came up with a count of 590 "unscrutinized" voters after filtering out all the redacted multiple votes. This represents a drop of at least 36% of participants compared to the 2013 election, probably more like 40% after a certain number of ballots are disqualified for failing to meet the editing minimums for vesting of votes established for the election. That's the big story of the election so far. I propose that GGTF attempt to (1) poll and (2) personally analyze the 255 "ungendered" voters as to their gender in an attempt to test the hypothesis that the count of women is underreported in official statistics. Those voting in the Arbcom election would seem to make a fine sample (albeit not truly random) of the 3000 or so core participants at En-WP. Tim Davenport Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
