empty simplistic theorizing need to do multi-factor analysis of input factors. edtitathons are gathering data, but sample size is small don't really have good data on percentage participation
my experience is that "female-related content" is improving, but gap remains as the toxic culture trumps everything else. i.e. low correlation On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 7:47 AM, Jane Darnell <[email protected]> wrote: > An interesting set of questions, Lennart! Let me first explain why I am > looking for reliable sources on the Gendergap. I have been involved with > efforts to reduce the Gendergap in the Netherlands since 2011. Our big news > today is that we have nearly doubled female participation from 6% (measured > in 2013) to 11% according to our latest survey results from this year. One > of the problems I have in discussions regarding the Gendergap is the whole > chicken-and-egg theory about whether women don't participate because of a > lack of female-related content, or whether we lack female-related content > because we have so few female participants. It would be nice to have an > article in the Dutch Wikipedia on the Gendergap to answer these questions > without repeating myself constantly, but I see that so far since > publication of that article on the English Wikipedia on 30 April 2014 > (called "Gender Bias on Wikipedia" in order to differentiate it from the > "Gender Pay Gap"), only the Turkish Wikipedia has managed to create an > article in their wiki on the same subject. > > I would really like to make an article in the Dutch Wikipedia about this, > and in this context we would rely on Dutch "reliable sources" but what they > have published so far is quite thin and only refers to the English > Wikipedia, which is not helpful. Slate is not recognized as a reliable > source by the Dutch Wikipedia, and this article, though interesting, does > not touch on the participation gap in the Netherlands or indeed why it even > matters. The Slate article is focused on an edit-war which is not really > relevant to the larger community because as you say, though the language on > talk pages in nlwiki can be very condescending or negative, it's generally > not profane like this one. I do think from conversations I have had and > research done by Aaron Halfaker and others, that the problem stems from the > strange need to throw links to help pages at newbies rather than talk to > them normally in language they can understand. Some of the very worst > articles in the Wikiverse are help pages, which are probably bad because > they are not indexed by Google and have too few eyes looking at them. That > said, the help pages need a better "between the lines" analysis for the AfD > queue, so that Dutch abbreviations like "Vrouw-baan" on the Dutch AfD list > are interpreted correctly to mean "This editor is probably a woman > promoting her own business and COI policy applies here" rather than what it > sounds like "all women who work should have their articles be deleted on > eye contact". I have also noticed that articles about women tend to be > nominated much more often for deletion than articles by men. Ditto the > books they write, the movies they make, and any notable news items they are > the subject of. I think women give up quicker because they are less > tech-savvy at finding their way around the various bits of > behind-the-scenes discussion areas. Often they can't even find their way to > the discussion at the AfD queue or the Village pump. > > Why doesn't the Swedish Wikipedia have an article about the Gendergap? > What is the Gendergap in Sweden today? > > On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 1:03 PM, Lennart Guldbrandsson < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello, >> >> Slate recently published a, at least to my eyes, fairly well-balanced >> article about Wikipedia: >> >> >> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html?wpsrc=sh_all_tab_tw_bot >> >> The Gender Gap Task Force gets more than a shout-out: >> >> "Last week, Wikipedia’s highest court, the Arbitration Committee, >> composed of 12 elected volunteers who serve one- or two-year terms, handed >> down a decision in a controversial case having to do with the site’s >> self-formed Gender Gap Task Force >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force>, >> the goal of which is to increase female participation on Wikipedia from its >> current 10 percent to 25 percent by the end of next year. The dispute, >> which involved ongoing hostility from a handful of prickly longtime >> editors, had simmered for at least 18 months. In the end, the only woman in >> the argument, pro-GGTF libertarian feminist Carol Moore >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Carolmooredc>, was indefinitely >> banned from all of Wikipedia over her uncivil comments toward a group of >> male editors, whom she at one point dubbed “the Manchester Gangbangers and >> their cronies/minions.” Two of her chief antagonists in that group got >> comparative slaps on the wrist. One was the productive but notoriously >> hostile Eric “Fuck Wikipedia >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=624229392>” >> Corbett, who has a milelong track record >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility_enforcement/Evidence> >> of >> incivility >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive855#Personal_attacks_and_incivility_by_Eric_Corbett>, >> had declared the task force a feminist “crusade ... to alienate every >> male editor >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF/Proposed_decision#Eric_Corbett> >> *,*” and called Moore “nothing but a pain in the arse >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&diff=prev&oldid=625749585>,” >> among less printable comments; he was handed a seemingly redundant >> “prohibition” on abusive language >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Interactions_at_GGTF/Proposed_decision#Eric_Corbett_prohibited>. >> The other editor was Sitush >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sitush>, who repeatedly >> criticized Moore for being “obsessed with an anti-male agenda >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sitush&diff=624275036&oldid=624267508>” >> and then decided to research and write a Wikipedia >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sitush/Carol_Moore> >> *biography* >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sitush/Carol_Moore> >> of her >> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Sitush/Carol_Moore>; >> he walked away with a mere “warning.” With the Arbitration Committee opting >> only to ban the one woman in the dispute despite her behavior being no >> worse than that of the men, it’s hard not to see this as a setback to >> Wikipedia’s efforts to rectify its massive gender gap. (After the decision, >> several >> editors announced their intentions to resign in protest >> <https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg04083.html>.) >> Moreover, it’s reflective of the challenges Wikipedia faces as it attempts >> to retain and improve its content quality and editing force." >> >> Also mentioned, the Chelsea Manning name controversy and the overall fall >> in editors. >> >> What I miss here and in almost every article in English I've seen on >> these types of topics is that English Wikipedia is the only one mentioned. >> I grant that many readers only know English, but I for one, don't recognize >> the same bad language and anti-women behavior in my daily work on Swedish >> Wikipedia. We would simply not allow people to speak that way. >> >> This leads me to wonder how those types of behaviors affect editors. We >> have a golden opportunity to A/B test this, because of all our language >> versions. >> >> So, my question, stated another way, is: if the bad language and >> anti-women behavior on English Wikipedia deter editors, and maybe >> especially female editors, and we have other Wikipedias with less bad >> language and anti-women behavior (perhaps), do these language versions have >> a higher female-to-male ratio? >> >> And stated a third way: how much do the bad language and anti-women >> behavior really influence the gendergap? >> >> >> Best wishes, >> >> Lennart Guldbrandsson >> >> 070 - 207 80 05 >> http://www.*elementx*.se <http://www.elementx.se> >> *Skriv som ett proffs <http://www.elementx.se/skriv-som-ett-proffs/>* - >> min senaste bok >> Få regelbundna skrivtips direkt till din inkorg >> <http://elementx.us7.list-manage1.com/subscribe?u=ab2080465c6cd11b5b253f940&id=8a2b974a62> >> >> @aliasHannibal <http://twitter.com/AliasHannibal> - på Twitter >> >> "*Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri >> tillgång till **världens samlade kunskap* >> <http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal:Huvudsida>*. Det är vårt mål.*" >> Jimmy Wales >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
