While I would continue to oppose the concept of a "slate" of candidates regardless of what "slate" they were representing (and I am fairly certain that the wider community would find it very inappropriate, too, having deprecated slates from Day One) I think there is some value in trying to recruit quality candidates for the Arbitration Committee. This year not a single woman ran for a seat - at a few points during my own tenure, which ended only last year, we had three women on the committee.
Risker/Anne On 10 December 2014 at 11:53, Jim Hayes <[email protected]> wrote: > i take the point that arbcom is overrated > we see how difficult it is for them to enforce even site bans as in the > case of betacommand > > and the point that it takes away from talking about image uploads or > infoboxes at editathons. > it is optimistic to imagine that we can train newbies to get to 150 edits, > and then show up for voting 6 months later. > > however, we need to move from outrage, to plan, to action. > low turnout provides a mechanism where we can gain control of what levers > there are, aside from our civil community circles. > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Sarah Stierch <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> I agree with all Jim says here. I also think the incentive of regular >> editing is too low - why hangout on Wikipedia after a long day at work or >> school or caring for a child when you can space out with Netflix or do >> something with more incentive (I am knee deep in Wikidata right now....and >> have written more Yelp reviews than I have Wikipedia articles this >> year....with yelp I have elite status and get to go to free parties with >> free food and booze..and no one yells at me for typos....) >> >> But I have been saying the same crap for 4 years now. So this broken >> record will go back to her open data sets... >> >> :-) >> >> Sarah >> On Dec 10, 2014 6:08 AM, "Jim Hayes" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> there is a lack of continuity studying editing behaviors, >>> it is all one-off studies, not longitudinal >>> they only know "editor decline" because it's an easy data dump. >>> that said, there is some data from editations being gathered by eval & >>> testing group. >>> >>> we fund editathons because the primary goal is institutional engagement, >>> not editor training. we do the training, because editing is a barrier to >>> entry, (learning curve is too hard) >>> a process with a 1% yield may need to be reinforced, since no process = >>> 0% yield. >>> there needs to be a culture change, beyond the "editors are a a dime a >>> dozen" >>> we can not rely on self-starters to become productive; the rate is not >>> large enough to replace the leaving editors. too much needs to be done, for >>> the existing numbers >>> >>> until there is a change to the bitey culture, newbies will stay away, or >>> not edit except at editathons. >>> until then, we can organize circles of civility, and provide some >>> positive reinforcement. >>> we need to develop norms that may be outside of wiki process, i.e. no >>> AfC, and push those that work, VE, teahouse, off wiki organization. >>> >>> arbcom or WMF, are now saying the right words, but do not have a plan or >>> the will to implement. the GGTF case tends to undermine the credibility of >>> arbcom. >>> >>> slow >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Sarah Stierch <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Just a gentle reminder..that the work we did evaluating edit-a-thons >>>> and workshops when I worked at WMF showed that they do not retain new >>>> editors.[1] >>>> >>>> They're good for getting people aware about Wikipedia - and people do >>>> edit while they are at the event, but, newer editors rarely edit AFTER the >>>> event, that is until the next event happens....so they aren't probably the >>>> magic way to solve the gender gap. Even those that involve academics, etc. >>>> I even evaluated my own edit-a-thons that I had implemented and saw the >>>> same trend, much to my dismay. >>>> >>>> However, providing quality mechanisms of education, outreach, and help >>>> can. We see that with the Teahouse. >>>> >>>> WMF told me a while ago they weren't going to invest in surveys, >>>> programming, etc and that it was up to the chapters and the "community" to >>>> take the initiative and be proactive. That was one of the biggest >>>> challenges of my fellowship - while I worked on two successful projects >>>> (Teahouse/WWC) and am very proud to have done that, I was really sad that >>>> more research and direct outreach was not going to be implemented. I've >>>> said it before and I'll say it again - I was broken hearted that I wasn't >>>> going to do more direct outreach to groups, institutions, and so forth. If >>>> we were able to make womencentric/diversity events part of institutional >>>> change internationally I think we could have seen a larger impact - like >>>> what GLAM-Wiki did. People go around and preach the gospel internationally >>>> and now GLAM-Wiki is almost old news.. lots of people are doing it... >>>> >>>> (Of course, WMF now invests in surveys and so forth via the Individual >>>> Engagement Grants) >>>> >>>> I wonder if having a chapter implement a survey for a specific language >>>> Wikipedia or something would work? When I did my 2011 survey I did it on my >>>> own, without asking anyone's permission. Now it seems everyone wants to >>>> control who investigates what, but, being a community member helped - I'm >>>> not some scientist from outside trying to put a microscope on a bunch of >>>> Wikipedians...because I am one. >>>> >>>> But, these ongoing mass-improvement and participatory projects by women >>>> come and go based on the month ("oh it's women' history month...get out the >>>> laptops and snacks!") and who is organizing. It's becoming more common - >>>> but, we still aren't hearing about women getting together or lot lots of >>>> women regularly editing. I still believe, based on Sue's thoughts, that not >>>> every woman is going to want to edit Wikipedia on a regular basis outside >>>> an event - just like not every man will. Some humans just aren't built to >>>> enjoy it like we all do... >>>> >>>> Sarah >>>> >>>> [1] >>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2013/Edit-a-thons >>>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Case_studies/WWHM >>>> >>>> -Sarah >>>> >>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Tim Davenport <[email protected]> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> In reply to Kerry Raymond's post... >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> QUANTIFICATION >>>>> >>>>> If "all the studies on female participation come up with low >>>>> percentages around 10%" but there are anecdotes of a significant >>>>> undercount >>>>> from Teahouse volunteers and such and if female participation at Wikimania >>>>> approaches one-third, would that not seem to fortify my point that there >>>>> is >>>>> a need for reexamination of the magnitude of the gender gap? What is the >>>>> exact magnitude of the female undercount (or the male overcount)? >>>>> >>>>> This does not even bring up the matter of dynamics — is the gender >>>>> disparity changing over time, and if so, which direction is it moving? >>>>> >>>>> There is only one way to find this out: study, study, study, survey, >>>>> survey, survey... >>>>> >>>>> That WMF has its own editor gender data from 2012 that it is not >>>>> releasing, as has been intimated, is annoying. Still: why is the GGTF >>>>> waiting for San Francisco at all? Why is quantification and surveying not >>>>> a >>>>> vital part of the task force's mission? >>>>> >>>>> That there is an editorial gender gap is beyond dispute. But how big >>>>> is it really and how is it changing over time? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> PROACTIVE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION >>>>> >>>>> So if edit-a-thons don't work, as you indicate, why is the WMF still >>>>> spending money on them? Is it mere symbolism? >>>>> >>>>> I have noted from working with a college class at WP that short-term >>>>> class assignments don't seem to create long-term Wikipedians. Students >>>>> being students, they slam out the minimum required right before deadline >>>>> and move along with their lives. I don't know what does create long-term >>>>> content people, other than a passion about SOMETHING and a desire to share >>>>> the information. Vandal fighters and quality control people may have a >>>>> different motivation. >>>>> >>>>> Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that there is NOTHING that >>>>> can be done proactively to pick the needles out of the haystack — that it >>>>> is impossible for any bureaucratic entity to identify and activate the >>>>> small fraction of 1% of people that will eventually become long-term >>>>> Wikipedia volunteers. >>>>> >>>>> This would mean that the "needles" are going to self-identify by >>>>> registering at WP and beginning work under their own volition. Therefore, >>>>> logically, primary attention should be focused on identifying and >>>>> cultivating "new editors" every day, nurturing the newbies as they start >>>>> to >>>>> navigate the technical and cultural learning curves. In which case, Ms. >>>>> Stierch's "Teahouse" concept is 100% right on the money. >>>>> >>>>> And that's where the gender gap can be addressed, by making sure that >>>>> every effort is made to teach and acclimate female newcomers in >>>>> particular. >>>>> >>>>> As for edit-a-thons and outreach recruiting, I personally believe that >>>>> any recruitment that is not focused on teachers and academics will >>>>> probably >>>>> not produce lasting results. I'm also pretty well convinced that long term >>>>> Wikipedians are made one at a time. >>>>> >>>>> Tim Davenport >>>>> "Carrite" on WP >>>>> Corvallis, OR >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ========= >>>>> >>>>> Kerry Raymond wrote: >>>>> >>>>> A. All the studies on female participation come up with low >>>>> percentages >>>>> around 10% plus or minus a few percent. Of course, it is possible that in >>>>> all of the studies the women are choosing not to self-identify. It is an >>>>> inherent difficulty in any study if people choose to not reveal >>>>> information. >>>>> But we know women make up large proportions of social media users, so if >>>>> women’s participation in Wikipedia is actually higher than studies show >>>>> due >>>>> to reluctance to self-identify, it begs the question of why they are so >>>>> unwilling to self-identify in the content of Wikipedia but not in other >>>>> contexts. Either way, it points to some problem. The last Wikimania >>>>> recently >>>>> released data that does show a higher level of female participation, >>>>> about 1 >>>>> in 3, I think. It would be interesting to see how the male/female numbers >>>>> break down across the various types of attendees, e.g. WMF staff, Chapter >>>>> members, event organisers, etc. My suspicion is that women are in higher >>>>> proportion among staffers, chapters, etc and this skews the Wikimania >>>>> participation. I don’t know how scholarships are awarded and whether women >>>>> are at any advantage in that process. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> B. A very interesting research >>>>> paperhttp://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf shows >>>>> that women >>>>> are less likely to survive the newbie stage than men. But, perhaps >>>>> contrary >>>>> to what many expected, their data does not suggest that women are more >>>>> easily discouraged by being reverted (they show men and women’s survival >>>>> rates in the face of reversion are similar) but that more women’s edits >>>>> are >>>>> reverted than men’s edits and this is the cause of higher attrition among >>>>> women. This has caused me to wonder if women as newbies are more attracted >>>>> to articles where the risk of reversion is higher perhaps because there >>>>> are >>>>> more policies to be considered (e.g. biographies of living people, noting >>>>> that women are predominantly the purchasers of “celebrity” magazines which >>>>> deal mostly in content related to living people). The paper does show that >>>>> men and women edit in different areas (men are more likely to edit in >>>>> geography and science for example) but the analysis is too high level to >>>>> answer my question. The other inherent limitation in any study of newbies >>>>> that there is nothing in the initial signup to Wikipedia that asks you >>>>> about >>>>> your gender (even optionally) so very few newbies are self-identifying as >>>>> either male or female at that time. So, it’s actually very hard to study >>>>> the >>>>> non-surviving female newbies because you can’t find them. This often means >>>>> our study of the experiences of newbies is based heavily on those who are >>>>> still around later to be studied or surveyed which introduces survivor >>>>> bias >>>>> into the study. So this may be a consideration in relation to the findings >>>>> of this paper. Interview studies keep pointing to women not liking the >>>>> abrasive environment of Wikipedia. Civility is a part of that issue. >>>>> Although I think it’s not so much about the use of specific words, but >>>>> rather a general culture of aggression. The people who use the swear words >>>>> are simply much easier to spot and hold up as examples of the broader >>>>> problem than those who engage in equally aggressive behaviour but do so >>>>> citing [[WP:Policy]] and use the undo-button. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> C. In relation to pro-active recruitment, I do a lot of that here >>>>> in >>>>> Australia, edit training and edit-a-thons. While some of the edit-a-thons >>>>> have targeted women participants and are therefore predominantly women, >>>>> edit >>>>> training events are generally not so targeted and attract both women and >>>>> men. From all of that I believe that women are not inherently >>>>> disinterested >>>>> in contributing to Wikipedia. However, these events do not seem to create >>>>> ongoing editors (whether female or male) and this experience is not >>>>> unique. >>>>> A recent survey by the foundation found that this is the case all over the >>>>> world. Generally, the one-event approach to edit training isn’t >>>>> sufficient. >>>>> Greater success seems to come from regular events usually in a >>>>> university/college setting, but regular events are a challenge to resource >>>>> with volunteers (we have other things that have to be done in our lives). >>>>> Interestingly, most of the people who currently attend our sessions are >>>>> middle aged and older. Many struggle with the markup; I hope the visual >>>>> editor will address some of that problem. So I think we need to look at >>>>> diversity in terms of age as well as gender. But I don’t think outreach is >>>>> really the answer because it cannot be done at the necessary scale. It’s >>>>> not >>>>> that we need to have a team of mentors, we need everyone to be willing to >>>>> help one another. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> D. One thing I learn from our outreach is that many of the newbies >>>>> (male and female) have unpleasant experiences even during the outreach >>>>> events as well as soon afterwards. Their edits are reverted (for what >>>>> seems >>>>> to me to be no justifiable reason), new articles being speedily deleted or >>>>> splashed with messages about policies they don’t know about and don’t >>>>> comprehend, or left in an eternal limbo of rejection in Article for >>>>> Creation. These folks are all “good faith” and they are all newcomers but >>>>> the policies of “assume good faith” and “don’t bite the newbies” are >>>>> completely ignored. We have many editors who are very aggressive. I have >>>>> no >>>>> idea if they are just angry with the world as a whole, or actually enjoy >>>>> bullying the newbies. While obviously there are benefits to a culture of >>>>> mentoring, even when I am in hand-holding edit-training mode (about as >>>>> mentoring as it gets and I provide my contact details off-wiki as well as >>>>> on-wiki for any follow-up), it’s difficult for me to justify to them why >>>>> the >>>>> newbie’s edits are being undone because the edits simply aren’t that bad. >>>>> The situation makes me very angry. It is not as if it is the same small >>>>> pool >>>>> of editors creating these problems where maybe one could try to take >>>>> action >>>>> against them. It seems that we have such a huge pool of aggressive editors >>>>> that our newbies will randomly attract the attention of one of them. (Or >>>>> it >>>>> may be that some bullying personalities are actively on the lookout for >>>>> victims and newbies are a soft target). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> So, all in all, I think if we need to go back to first principles “the >>>>> encyclopaedia anyone can edit” and see that the aggressive nature of the >>>>> community is working against this intention and seek to curb that >>>>> aggression. I think curbing the aggression would result in more editors >>>>> both >>>>> male and female. So in that light, I would have to say that I find the >>>>> ArbCom decision distressing as it appears to acknowledge and reinforce >>>>> that >>>>> the aggressive culture is both dominant and should continue to be so. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Kerry >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>>> [email protected] >>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Sarah Stierch >>>> >>>> ----- >>>> >>>> Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization. >>>> >>>> www.sarahstierch.com >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> Gendergap mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Gendergap mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> Gendergap mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
