Hello, This is very interesting. Thank you for sharing. Please let us know if and when it can be shared more freely. I know a few people who'd want to read about this. I know I was surprised to read that we would be better off trying to recruit new editors than to focus on retention (very simplified).
A couple of points, none of which I've seen mentioned in this thread: * no matter the numbers, it will take a lot of male editors to help engaging more female editors. Not only because if female editors were to concentrate on engaging other females, they would have less time editing, and not only because we have more male editors, but because this is not only a woman's issue. It's an issue of neutrality and dissemination of knowledge. If we can get more male editors to get behind this question, it will be much easier getting to the desired numbers. * I wrote a blog post a few years ago, stating that if all the women who were named Elsa started editing Swedish Wikipedia actively (4 times a day = more than 100 edits a month), the gendergap would cease to exist. (https://wikimediasverige.wordpress.com/2013/12/16/varfor-skriver-inte-kvinnor-pa-wikipedia/) These kinds of numbers are telling, in that they convey a fairly common misconception: although we have a huge gendergap, the number of people actually editing Wikipedia is not that great. So in actual numbers, if we divide the effort between chapters and non-chapters and individual Wikipedians, I think it's possible to reach those numbers. Anyway, great post and again, thanks. Best wishes, Lennart Guldbrandsson 070 - 207 80 05 http://www.elementx.se Skriv som ett proffs - min senaste bok Få regelbundna skrivtips direkt till din inkorg @aliasHannibal - på Twitter "Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål." Jimmy Wales Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2015 13:51:31 -0400 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Gendergap] What would it take to Close the Gender Gap? I like the idea of experimenting with new knowledgespaces, with new workflows to support them. With enough investment in design, I think this could be done on a large scale right in the project namespace of English Wikipedia. Thanks,Pharos On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Sarah (SV) <[email protected]> wrote: On Mon, Jun 1, 2015 at 10:00 AM, Samuel Klein <[email protected]> wrote: Thanks Jason. I enjoyed reading this, though the conclusions remind me of _Seeing Like a State_. Not all edits, editors, and subcommunities are equal. Trying to shift about contributors en masse in a way that is convenient for large organizations (or for those of us who like crunching large datasets :) can be a total failure in practice. Let's set up a new space where we can experiment with fast influxes of newbies. The current large projects are not suited for this. I believe good design is a key issue for editor attraction and retention, so that we can produce professional-looking articles we can be proud of and want to write. I would also love to see the Foundation redesign the front page. It's hard for the community to take the lead when it comes to design, and it seems to fall off the radar when people discuss editor retention and gender gap. Sarah _______________________________________________ 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
