Thank you so much, Jason Radford, for sharing your analysis! Lennart Guldbrandsson said:
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). I noticed that too and found it very surprising. Jason, I read that section of your blog post carefully. This was confusing to me: *Existing Editor Retention*: Currently, about 75% of editors retire every > year or about 2.1% per month. In this simulation, we ask what happens if > we were to reduce the retirement rate of existing female editors to 80%, > 90%, or 100% while maintaining the existing retirement rate for male > editors at 75%. The reason it is confusing is because the accompanying x-y chart shows three time series, labelled 80% retention, 90% retention and 100% respectively, see below. Do you mean to say, "increase the retention rate" to 80%, 90% or 100% instead of "reduce the retirement rate"? 80%, 90% and 100% retirement rates aren't an improvement. Could you humor me, and confirm that this was just a wording error, and not associated with anything in the underlying analysis? Thank you, ~FeralOink (Ellie Kesselman)
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list [email protected] To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
