Re: [Gendergap] recognition of gender gap*s* (in the plural) Re: LGBT mailing list

[John Vandenberg]

Hi Claudia.  There are good numbers for LGBT in real world populations, and
the people doing the studies are all to aware of the problems with their
numbers - there are journals dedicated to research in this discipline.  i
havent seen similar quality academic studies about LGBT within the
wikimedia community - these studies tend to be very simplistic due to lack
if understanding or inadequate funding, and/or riddled with bias without
explanation.
 On Jul 6, 2012 1:11 PM,  wrote:

> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
> > I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap.
>
> my impression is that there certainly are gender gaps in LGBTIQA*
> communities - if ever non-heterosexual
> people are happy to be lumped together just because of not identifying
> non-heterosexual, that is ... -
>
> irrespective of whether we define "gender" in two (female / male) or in
> many (like in LGBTIQA*, with *
> including heterosexuals of whatever gender)
>
> and also, yes, I also think that there is a widespread gender gap between
> non-heterosexuals and
> heterosexuals, "widespread" meaning: in many cultures (and that bisexuals
> are the freest and hence could
> act as the bridge-builders for such a gender gap in a very nice way, it
> seems to me)
>
> > The point of the
> [LGBT]
> > list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation
> > like gendergap is.
>
> why is this not intended, Tom?
> see also the following:
>
> On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:35:21 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote
> > I agree, mostly, but. . my understanding is that the surveys (ignoring
> the
> > faults in them) indicate LGBT may actually be over-represented in
> wikimedia
> > when compared to the distribution expected by real-world population
> > studies; in both men and women.  Im not saying this is bad, but that it
> > does not appear that there is a LGBT systemic gap that needs a strategic
> > approach to solving.
>
> maybe there is another methodological issue here?
> why would you want to ignore the faults in wikimedia surveys but not in
> outcomes of any study that
> purports to "verify" (or whatever) "the distribution expected by
> real-world population studies"?
>
> how can anyone who is doing "real-world population studies" expect to find
> out anything reliable about the
> size of a community who members are still facing systematic social and
> political attempts at silencing (about
> their way of life) by their adversaries of whatever inclination?
>
> maybe, hence, it would be more realistic to compare non-real-world results
> to the wikimedia results?
> hypothesis: "over-represented" would start with 51% LGBTIQA* but not below
> :-)
>
> anyway, I am not sure I agree with Tom's list of differences between the
> [gendergap] and [LGBT] lists and
> will come back to this later since I think it is more important to see
> what these two lists have in common :-)
> so I like John's argument that we might learn from each other!
>
> cheers
> Claudia
>
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
> > On Monday, 2 July 2012 at 06:24, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote:
> > > Hi Tom, hi @all
> > >
> > > > Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created
> > >
> > > since we are addressing not only one gender gap but, seemingly quite a
> few, including those that come
> alonf
> > > the lines of what has come to be called sexual orientarion, I have a
> question about the creation process
> of
> > > the new list. I recently heard elsewhere that
> > >
> > > it was difficult to bring WF to "allow" the list to be created in the
> frame of lists.wikimedia.org
> (http://lists.wikimedia.org)?
> > > how come?
> >
> > You can see the discussion that led to the creation of the mailing list
> here:
> > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37888
> >
> > I disagreed rather strongly with the suggestion made that two of the
> > proposed list administrators (Varnent and Fae) would have a "POV"*, but
> > agreed to be a list admin instead.
> >
> > Eventually, there was not really any "difficulty", just confusion and
> > miscommunication. All's well that ends well.
> >
> > I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap. The point of the
> > list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation
> > like gendergap is. It's based on two things: dealing with problematic
> > editor interaction issues if and when they occur and trying to increase
> > outreach to LGBT communities and organisations – sort of like GLAM:
> > there are historical and cultural organisations Wikimedians can work with
> > to counter systemic bias etc. (As with women's history, LGBT history is
> > often written out of the literature, and thus out of Wikipedia.)
> >
> > There's obviously some overlap given that gender, gender identity and
> > sexual orientation are all bound together, but I wouldn't otherwise want
> > to draw comparisons with what gendergap is doing and what the LGBT list
> is
> > doing.
> >
> > * To quote Lady Gaga:

Re: [Gendergap] recognition of gender gap*s* (in the plural) Re: LGBT mailing list

[koltzenburg]

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
> I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap. 

my impression is that there certainly are gender gaps in LGBTIQA* communities - 
if ever non-heterosexual 
people are happy to be lumped together just because of not identifying 
non-heterosexual, that is ... - 

irrespective of whether we define "gender" in two (female / male) or in many 
(like in LGBTIQA*, with * 
including heterosexuals of whatever gender)

and also, yes, I also think that there is a widespread gender gap between 
non-heterosexuals and 
heterosexuals, "widespread" meaning: in many cultures (and that bisexuals are 
the freest and hence could 
act as the bridge-builders for such a gender gap in a very nice way, it seems 
to me)

> The point of the 
[LGBT]
> list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation 
> like gendergap is.

why is this not intended, Tom? 
see also the following:

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:35:21 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote
> I agree, mostly, but. . my understanding is that the surveys (ignoring the
> faults in them) indicate LGBT may actually be over-represented in wikimedia
> when compared to the distribution expected by real-world population
> studies; in both men and women.  Im not saying this is bad, but that it
> does not appear that there is a LGBT systemic gap that needs a strategic
> approach to solving.

maybe there is another methodological issue here?
why would you want to ignore the faults in wikimedia surveys but not in 
outcomes of any study that 
purports to "verify" (or whatever) "the distribution expected by real-world 
population studies"?

how can anyone who is doing "real-world population studies" expect to find out 
anything reliable about the 
size of a community who members are still facing systematic social and 
political attempts at silencing (about 
their way of life) by their adversaries of whatever inclination?

maybe, hence, it would be more realistic to compare non-real-world results to 
the wikimedia results? 
hypothesis: "over-represented" would start with 51% LGBTIQA* but not below :-)

anyway, I am not sure I agree with Tom's list of differences between the 
[gendergap] and [LGBT] lists and 
will come back to this later since I think it is more important to see what 
these two lists have in common :-)
so I like John's argument that we might learn from each other!

cheers
Claudia

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
> On Monday, 2 July 2012 at 06:24, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote:
> > Hi Tom, hi @all
> >  
> > > Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created
> >  
> > since we are addressing not only one gender gap but, seemingly quite a few, 
> > including those that come 
alonf
> > the lines of what has come to be called sexual orientarion, I have a 
> > question about the creation process 
of
> > the new list. I recently heard elsewhere that
> >  
> > it was difficult to bring WF to "allow" the list to be created in the frame 
> > of lists.wikimedia.org 
(http://lists.wikimedia.org)?
> > how come?
> 
> You can see the discussion that led to the creation of the mailing list here:
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37888
> 
> I disagreed rather strongly with the suggestion made that two of the 
> proposed list administrators (Varnent and Fae) would have a "POV"*, but 
> agreed to be a list admin instead.
> 
> Eventually, there was not really any "difficulty", just confusion and 
> miscommunication. All's well that ends well.
> 
> I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap. The point of the 
> list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation 
> like gendergap is. It's based on two things: dealing with problematic 
> editor interaction issues if and when they occur and trying to increase 
> outreach to LGBT communities and organisations – sort of like GLAM: 
> there are historical and cultural organisations Wikimedians can work with 
> to counter systemic bias etc. (As with women's history, LGBT history is 
> often written out of the literature, and thus out of Wikipedia.)
> 
> There's obviously some overlap given that gender, gender identity and 
> sexual orientation are all bound together, but I wouldn't otherwise want 
> to draw comparisons with what gendergap is doing and what the LGBT list is 
> doing.
> 
> * To quote Lady Gaga: if I have a POV or a COI, I was born that way.
> 
> --  
> Tom Morris
> 
> 
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


thanks & cheers,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] LGBT mailing list

[John Vandenberg]

On Jul 6, 2012 10:56 AM, "Gillian White"  wrote:
> ...
> I think we should ignore sexual
> orientation on THIS one as it is irrelevant
> for addressing the the lack of female
> participation in Wikmedia projects.

I agree, mostly, but. . my understanding is that the surveys (ignoring the
faults in them) indicate LGBT may actually be over-represented in wikimedia
when compared to the distribution expected by real-world population
studies; in both men and women.  Im not saying this is bad, but that it
does not appear that there is a LGBT systemic gap that needs a strategic
approach to solving. I would love to hear of more research on this wrt
women, as it could help steer our gender gap solution finding efforts.

> Otherwise I want a list for people who
> identify as celibate.

Hehe.  I can imagine that, like the gendergap list full of men(mea culpa;
ora pro me) , list being dominated by sexually active people trying to
'help' the celibate.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] WikiWomen's Luncheon at Wikimania

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

P.S. As someone who used to be part of a "*Chix" organization and got
tired of explaining why we called ourselves "chicks", I'm all in favor
of naming things "*Women" instead. :)


WikiLadies Who WikiLunch? (Sorry ...)

Daniel Case

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] LGBT mailing list

[Gillian White]

The GenderGap list is about the gender gap - the gap in representation,
involvement, participation, and acceptance of women on Wikipedia. We are
concerned about it because of its impact on the encyclopaedia and on some
people working in good faith on it. The sexual orientation and indeed, the
sex life of those women and men is irrelevant. Individuals who are
concerned to remedy the gender gap for the sake of the encyclopaedia might
be male (gay or straight) or female (gay or straight) or anything else for
that matter. To repeat, this gender gap list is about the gender gap. It is
not about sub groups or sexual identification. It is about accessing the
knowledge and talents of 50% of the population. It is about PEOPLE working
together on a project and a problem with that project irrespective of who
they choose or decline to have as sexual partners.

So it is good that there will be a separate list specifically for
discussions of L, G, B,T, I, Q etc. I think we should ignore sexual
orientation on THIS one as it is irrelevant for addressing the the lack of
female participation in Wikmedia projects. Otherwise I want a list for
people who identify as celibate.

Thanks for reading,
Whiteghost.ink
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] WikiWomen's Luncheon at Wikimania

[Valerie Aurora]

On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 11:18 AM, Karen Sue Rolph  wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> I hope someone with survey design experience will be at this event and
> collect data on how many mothers manage to attend this event.  We need to
> know whether women have adult or young children, and whether they are single
> parents, their ethnicity, and professional training.  This will provide
> truly useful data, if done scientifically.  I can help write an instrument
> if called upon to do so.  Let us not overlook single parent fathers and
> alternative parents.  My hypothesis is that there will be extremely few of
> any of these.  Dads (in some ethnicities) get a social 'bonus' for being
> parents (increased social status), unlike mothers, so its important to
> distinguish clearly who is supporting and raising children, not just having
> parented and kids exist in the world kinds of data.

FYI, every event for women in open technology and culture that I have
attended where we asked for this information had a very low rate of
women who were parents - around 5%.  At the Ada Initiative, we believe
we must include women with children in our mission.  Since one of our
co-founders has a small child, we are aware of at least some of the
challenges involved in having children and participating in open
technology and culture.

This is one of the reasons that the Ada Initiative is providing free
childcare to AdaCamp attendees, although we only had one person apply
in time for the deadline to register for childcare.  We plan to
advertise it better in the future.  Childcare has turned out to be
fairly easy to provide, and we hope to be able to help other
conferences provide childcare in the future.

-VAL

-- 
Increasing the participation of women in open technology and culture
http://adainitiative.org

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] WikiWomen's Luncheon at Wikimania

[Pete Forsyth]

Good question. I wonder if this sort of survey has been done more generally for 
conferences? I would imagine all the factors mentioned here would apply to 
conference attendance generally, not specific to Wikimania. Which might speak 
to how effective we could reasonably expect conferences to be in addressing the 
gender gap.

-Pete


On Jul 5, 2012, at 8:18 AM, Karen Sue Rolph wrote:

> Dear colleagues,
> 
> I hope someone with survey design experience will be at this event and 
> collect data on how many mothers manage to attend this event.  We need to 
> know whether women have adult or young children, and whether they are single 
> parents, their ethnicity, and professional training.  This will provide truly 
> useful data, if done scientifically.  I can help write an instrument if 
> called upon to do so.  Let us not overlook single parent fathers and 
> alternative parents.  My hypothesis is that there will be extremely few of 
> any of these.  Dads (in some ethnicities) get a social 'bonus' for being 
> parents (increased social status), unlike mothers, so its important to 
> distinguish clearly who is supporting and raising children, not just having 
> parented and kids exist in the world kinds of data.
> 
> KSRolph
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Pete Forsyth
petefors...@gmail.com
503-383-9454 mobile

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] WikiWomen's Luncheon at Wikimania

[Karen Sue Rolph]

Dear colleagues,

I hope someone with survey design experience will be at this event and collect 
data on how many mothers manage to attend this event.  We need to know whether 
women have adult or young children, and whether they are single parents, their 
ethnicity, and professional training.  This will provide truly useful data, if 
done scientifically.  I can help write an instrument if called upon to do so.  
Let us not overlook single parent fathers and alternative parents.  My 
hypothesis is that there will be extremely few of any of these.  Dads (in some 
ethnicities) get a social 'bonus' for being parents (increased social status), 
unlike mothers, so its important to distinguish clearly who is supporting and 
raising children, not just having parented and kids exist in the world kinds of 
data.

KSRolph   ___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap