I haven't heard from him in a couple weeks but last I checked he was busy recovering. I've poked him in case he didn't see this email.
Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device -------- Original message -------- From: Neotarf <[email protected]> Date:03/28/2015 1:55 PM (GMT-06:00) To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects." <[email protected]> Cc: Subject: Re: [Gendergap] A path back for day-two editors (was: Wikipedia Day NYC 2015 mini-conferenceh for te project's 14th birthday) Someone should ping Kevin Gorman on this, I believe he knows of some research. Does anyone know about his health? Is he able to respond? On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 12:40 PM, Sydney Poore <[email protected]> wrote: I agree with Christine. There is good work being done as learning has taken place about the strengths and weaknesses of edit-a-thons. Because it has been know for a few years that one off edit-a-thons create content but don't grow new users, now many people have been experimenting with different ways to use edit-a-thons other than editor recruitment. Having an edit-a-thon on a specific topic can increase the quantity and quality of content on that topic even if the people never edit again. And the people leave with a better understanding of Wikipedia and the behind the scene working or the community that seem very mysterious to the outside world. And also regular meet ups to edit like WikiSalons or /Wiki Editing Clubs are being tried in as a way to create a stable group of people who enjoy editing together. These people are true Wikipedians even thought they might not be high volume users. The can fill a needed niche in Wikipedia especially if they are editing about topics that are under represented on Wikipedia or they have an alternative perspective than the average Wikipedian. I'm launching an editing club in the topic area of oral health soon. Because I always mention gender in my Cochrane Collaboration presentations the women who edit in these clubs know that they are helping to balance the gender gap on Wikipedia even though that was not their primary reason for editing.Like most outside organizations Cochrane is at least 50% women. So by doing these initiatives we are automatically helping the gender gap. They see this aspect as an added benefit of our collaboration. Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Thu, Mar 26, 2015 at 1:11 AM, Christine Meyer <[email protected]> wrote: Kerry and all, I've been thinking about much of what you wrote. Being in this list has made me think about how to recruit and retain more female editors. I attended Emily's training about how to conduct workshops and edit-athons in Washington, D.C. last fall, which was a very valuable experience. Many things germinated during the training, including Rosiestep's creation of the Women Writers Project (I'm proud to say that I was present, in the same room, when she created it) and the planning stages of the GA Cup, which was hugely successful. There was an off-hand remark made during the training that I think all the edit-athons and workshops that have occurred since has borne out--that the most successful edit-athons in terms of recruiting new editors have been reoccurring. I wonder if the answer is the creation of editing clubs, something that has been discussed here before. The reason I'm thinking this way is that I'm preparing an educational session I'm leading at the end of April, at the District 9 Toastmasters spring conference in Yakima, Washington. (I'm a very active Toastmaster, like I'm a very active Wikipedian.) It won't be a workshop about how to edit WP, but a more general session about how to more effectively use WP to write speeches, although I am providing participants with a resource list about editing. So I've been thinking about how being a Toastmaster has made me a better WP editor, and how being an editor has made me a better Toastmaster. I'm starting to believe that a more effective way to recruit editors is to create clubs like Toastmasters, which meet regularly (once or twice a month) and have a core of 7 or 8 people. TM states that 20 members make a healthy club, and they should know; they've been in existence for 90 years. I agree that editors are born, not made. (Which is ironic, because TM's tag line is, "Where leaders are made.") Editing clubs, though, are ways to find those folks, and to mentor them through the complex WP policies. If they exist on college campuses, they can be folded into the university's existing club structure. They can, like TM clubs, be held in church basements or in hotel conference rooms or in hospital meeting rooms. I get what you say about experienced editors have little patience with the bungling newbies. However, if it weren't for a few more experienced editors who mentored me through my bungling stage, I probably wouldn't be here today. Adrienne Wadewitz, btw, was one of them. I think that we, as experienced editors, have a responsibility to mentor newbies--to pay it forward like others helped us when we were newbies. Shoot, I still need it. For example, I'd say that I'm a very experienced editor, and I'm stupid when it comes to creating tables. I'm getting assistance with that as we speak, in my most recent FLC (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Sesame_Street_Muppets/archive1&redirect=no). Anyway, that's what I've been thinking. Christine User: Figureskatingfan On Wed, Mar 25, 2015 at 1:01 AM, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]> wrote: Certainly my own experience with edit training and edit-a-thons is that, while people (both male and female) seem to enjoy the workshop, they don’t come back for more. I increasingly share the view that Wikipedians are born not made. I am not sure that outreach achieves very much, given it is very difficult to scale. So, I am inclined to think that the best investments are in nurturing new organic (as in “self-selecting”) editors and maintaining the enthusiasm of the longer-terms editors. I think it is ultimately “the community” that grinds all of us down in the long term. I’ve heard it expressed in different ways by different folks. Some say they’ve just sick of the vandalism fighting. Personally I did a very short stint as a reviewer for Articles for Review because so many were of them looked dubious notability and probably CoI that I thought why am I bothering (the wrong attitude I know but at least know I understand why AfR produces so few accepted articles – I think you either walk away or turn into a Auto-Reject Reviewer). Others get tired of fixing problems created by an endless stream of newbies making the same well-intentioned but inappropriate edits. My personal peeve is the Lamington article which is frequently changed to say it was invented in New Zealand, but with no sources provided, in an article that currently documents every known early mentions of lamingtons and shows all of them are Australian in origin (sorry, Kiwis, but you need evidence to back up your persistent claims). Others get tired of having run-ins with same grumpy old editors, the gatekeepers, etc. The interaction between the I’ve-really-had-enough-of-these-newbies and the bumbling-but-well-intentioned newbie is clearly a bit part of the problem; it seems one of them gets burned by the interaction (either the old hand flays the newbie or the old hand gives and walks away).. My solution is not female-specific, but I think we do have to recognise that we have years of effort gone into many articles. The people who put that effort in don’t want to keep dealing with the newbie edits on what is often very stable text. I think we have to consider that it isn’t appropriate to have immature editors messing with mature content. It would be kinder to all parties if we could (automatically) flag text that has achieved “maturity” and give it some semi-protection from the newcomers, directing them to the talk page rather than direct edits to the page itself. But let other articles or parts of articles that don’t have maturity to be more able to directly edits by relative newcomers. How do we measure maturity? I am not sure, but I think indicators are survival of much of the text over a long period (disregarding short-lived reverted edits), large number of editors who have contributed to the development of this articles, large watchlist, .., these are machine-measurable things, i.e. could be automated. I think if we can prevent the interactions likely to be unpleasant then maybe people can co-exist a little happier. Kerry _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Christine ____________________ Christine W. Meyer [email protected] 208/310-1549 _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
