[Gendergap] Re: List update
Welcome back! Just to piggyback on this post, I'd also like to let people know that we've recently lost two editors who were a significant part of working on content gaps. Flyer22, who made significant contributions to articles on women's health, died in January: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2021-01-31/Obituary And just recently, SlimVirgin (Sarah), who among her many significant contributions overall, also founded the Gender Gap Task Force in 2013 and wrote an essay on how to write about women on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deceased_Wikipedians/2021#SlimVirgin On Mon, May 10, 2021 at 9:34 PM Leigh Honeywell wrote: > Hey folks! it's been a while. > > The Gendergap mailing list just got migrated to Mailman 3, which means I > now have my admin access back (I'd lost access to the previous system and > hadn't had a chance to restore it for... several years.) > > The list had been set to new posters being moderated, which resulted in a > number of messages being caught and I wasn't able to release them. > Unfortunately those messages didn't survive the migration, but I've > adjusted the moderation settings and going forward new messages should go > through. > > I've adjusted the list description to be a bit more concise: it is now > "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase gender diversity > in Wikimedia projects." > > This part is sad, but as a heads up and for transparency's sake: > I also went ahead and removed Kevin as an Owner/Moderator of the list as I > don't know who now controls his former email accounts. For those who had > missed his passing, there is a lovely tribute to his life and work on the > Signpost: > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2016-08-04/Obituary > > Hope that everyone has been keeping well through this difficult time, and > I look forward to seeing more activity on this list in the future with the > new Mailman migration. > > All the best, > > -Leigh > > > -- > Leigh Honeywell > http://hypatia.ca > @hypatiadotca > ___ > Gendergap mailing list -- gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe send an email to gendergap-le...@lists.wikimedia.org > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please > visit: > %(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s ___ Gendergap mailing list -- gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe send an email to gendergap-le...@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: %(web_page_url)slistinfo%(cgiext)s/%(_internal_name)s
Re: [Gendergap] Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia (WPO article)
Thanks for the response Andreas. I've updated with the 8.5% source. I'm not selling Hill as a panacea either; there are actually lots of techniques to correct biased sampling and using another survey as a benchmark only works well if the demographic questions are the same or at least very closely matched. I haven't compared the Pew and UN surveys in detail but I'm sure it could be done better (that's pretty much how these things always go)! One thing I didn't criticise you for yet (but will now!) is to dismiss the claim of family status's effect on contribution based on the data you provided. I agree that the fact that even young women are very unrepresented means it likely doesn't account for a large portion of the gender gap. But your argument that the fact that the *bulk* of wikipedians are younger people means that family status isn't an issue is particularly erroneous, because it assumes that age demographics and family status are independent- which they are quite clearly not. It could be, for instance, that gender gap is smallest in the younger demographic *because* they don't have families yet, and the proportion of women drops with age because they drop out to have families. (Not an actual hypothesis I'm proposing, just an example of how assuming independance goes wrong fast.) It's important to keep in mind that the actual reason for the gender gap is probably a large number of very small things and no particular one of these things likely accounts for a very large portion of the gap- if that's the case we'll need much better statistical power to detect them and more sophisticated analyses. Anyway, thanks for writing this post- got us talking, and regardless of how the actual numbers kick up it's still pretty clear there aren't very many of us. On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 8:42 PM, phoebe ayers wrote: > > > > On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Andreas Kolbe wrote: >> >> >> >> I will have to look into Hill & Shaw, but would note that the Wikimedia >> Foundation itself reported the figures from the UNU survey as they stood >> (see e.g. p. 8 of the February 2011 Strategic Plan: "According to the study, >> over 86% of contributors were male"). >> > > NB., that was before the Hill & Shaw paper was published, which was 2013 :) > Hill & Shaw is *probably* the best estimate of the gendergap we have so far, > but everyone -- including the WMF and the researchers involved -- knows that > the data can be improved. And hopefully it will be, with future editor > surveys and more research! > > -- phoebe > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia (WPO article)
The math behind that little statistic was so terrible I had to write a blog post about it. http://blog.mvolz.com/2014/08/what-percentage-of-wikipedia-editors-are-mums/ First off, in their blog post, Andreas & Collida multiply the percentage of contributor respondents who were women (12.64%) by the percentage of all respondents (contributor and reader, male and female) who were parents- 14.72%- while seemingly missing that the study in fact provided a breakdown of this: 13.7% of all female respondents were parents. (15.1% of the male respondents were). Secondly, Andreas & Collida cherry pick a lower bound number for women contributors (8.5%) (source unkown) and presented the number from the survey (12.64%) as an upper bound. A literature search gave me an upper bound of 16.1% from Hill & Shaw. Furthermore, the source Andreas & Collida used contained biased statistics. The original WMF/UNU-MERIT report had no methods section and didn’t control for sampling bias. The Hill & Shaw paper controls for sample bias based on a survey by Pew, which used better sampling methods. Hill & Shaw tried to control for the survey’s selection bias and found that they “estimate that females, married people, and individuals with children were underrepresented in the WMF/UNU-MERIT sample while immigrants and students were overrepresented.” This means that the two statistics Andreas & Collida chose to multiply together; female editors/contributors and males and females with children- were *both* underestimates in the WMF/UNU-MERIT survey. Hill & Shaw provide the adjusted numbers for these accordingly; they estimate that 16.1% of contributors (as opposed to 12.64%) are female, and that 25.3% have children. We can perform a similar analysis as Andreas & Collida using those adjusted numbers by multiplying them, a result of about 4.1%- more than double their highest estimate. Of course, this number is also flawed; we don’t have the actual breakdown of what percentage of female contributors have children, and instead are multiplying aggregate numbers. A better estimate could be obtained by redoing Hill & Shaw‘s analysis on the raw dataset. On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 9:14 PM, Tim Davenport wrote: > There is a new blog post up on Wikipedia-criticism site Wikipediocracy that > should be of interest to this list. > > Andreas Kolbe with Nathalie Collida, "Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia: > Thoughts on the Online Encyclopedia's Gender Imbalance." > > http://wikipediocracy.com/2014/08/26/why-women-have-no-time-for-wikipedia/ > > One interesting assertion made by the authors in their lengthy essay is that > fewer than 1 in 50 WP contributors is a mother: > > "It is sometimes argued that women simply have less time to contribute to > Wikipedia, due to family commitments. This is a fallacy. Firstly, the United > Nations University survey found that only 33.29% of respondents had a > partner, and only 14.72% had children. The difference between readers and > contributors was negligible here, and the survey report did not indicate any > difference in these percentages for male and female respondents. It is > patently obvious that girls and women in the age groups that are most > strongly represented in Wikipedia’s demographics typically do not yet have > families of their own. Their lack of participation is unrelated to their > being bogged down by family responsibilities. > > "Of course, these figures also tell us something else: if only 14.72% of > contributors have children, and the percentage of female contributors lies > somewhere between 8.5% and 12.64%, then it looks like only 1.25%–1.86% of > Wikipedia contributors are mothers. > > "That is less than 1 in 50." > > > Tim Davenport > "Carrite" on WP /// "Randy from Boise" on WPO > > > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Visiting the Feminist library in London
Just an erratum; the lunch is on Sunday. On Aug 6, 2014 1:31 AM, "Sanja Pavlović" wrote: > Hi, everyone! > > For all of you who are in London for Wikimania - I would very like to meet > you all :) I look forward the lunch we will have on Saturday! > > Some girls and me were thinking about visiting the Feminist library while > we are here: > http://feministlibrary.co.uk/ > > Unfortunately, they are not open during August, but fortunately, they are > able to book some visit and to show us the place if we ask them by email :) > So, I was wondering, if some of you are interested in going there, maybe > we can all go together. > Please, get in touch with me if you are interested, and I will try to > contact the Library and choose the day. > > In the same occasion, maybe we can also visit the Women's Library at LSE: > > http://www.lse.ac.uk/library/collections/featuredCollections/womensLibraryLSE/Womens-Library-at-LSE-bid-brochure.pdf > > > > Happy to hear from you, > > > Sanja > > Wikimedia Serbia > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] WMF employee editing
I'm not a wikimedia employee, but I am an intern with wikimedia this summer. I'm a fairly active contributor on en wiki; but it is on another account which is not my "WMF" account. So I am editing, just not publicly. I wouldn't be surprised if that was also the case for many female (and male) WMF employees. -mvolz On Mon, Jun 30, 2014 at 1:28 AM, Keilana wrote: > I think having some dedicated time for the women of the Foundation to edit > in a social environment is one potential solution. I know I seem to be like > a broken record - women need invitation and dedicated time and social > support! - but it's so true. I think the Foundation is an environment ripe > for that kind of collaboration because they are already committed to the > movement and just need a little push to edit more. I'm not sure how we as a > community can support them besides generally being welcoming and not being > adversarial just because they're from WMF. > > -Emily > > > On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Pine W wrote: > >> Hi, this is a question I've been wondering about for awhile, and I am >> interested in hearing comments. >> >> My impression is that few of WMF's female employees are regular content >> editors or regular Commons media contributors, although they occasionally >> have office discussions about how to increase the number of female editors. >> What could be done to encourage WMF's female employees to edit or >> contribute media files on a regular basis, and would the necessary >> encouragement for these women also apply to other working women who would >> make good editors? >> >> Pine >> >> ___ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] men on lists
>If you ask a black artist to paint a picture of a man they will most likely paint a picture of a black man. A tangent- but this is not strictly true! See: http://mediadiversified.org/2013/12/07/you-cant-do-that-stories-have-to-be-about-white-people/ On Sun, Jun 29, 2014 at 8:11 PM, Marie Earley wrote: > Since you've asked Derric... > > When you posted your message, "Can we please steer it back on topic and > remember why we are all here?" > - I was ready to steam in as I misinterpreted it. > > I thought that - as a response to Carol's comment that women get hassled > here and quit the list - you were saying, "We're not supposed to be talking > about women getting hassled, we're supposed to be talking about why women > leave." (I was going to say, "but they left precisely BECAUSE they were > being hassled".) > > Fortunately I read your next message in time not to steam in. > > Perhaps instead of: > > > "Nemo and Carol both, I really don't like the direction that this > discussion is going. Can we please steer it back on topic and remember why > we are all here?" > > ...something along the lines of, > > "I'm sure there are lots of examples people could give of poor behaviour > on this list. Since the purpose of this list is "...discussing solutions > and exploring opportunities that may serve as a starting point to improve > gender equity, increase the participation of women and trans women, and > reduce the impact of the gender gap within Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons, > and the 'free knowledge movement'." then perhaps we should discuss measures > that would tackle such poor behaviour." > > Also if you ask a white artist to paint a picture of a man they will most > likely paint a picture of a white man. If you ask a black artist to paint a > picture of a man they will most likely paint a picture of a black man. > Neither are being racist. It's worth remembering that men - no matter how > progressive or forward thinking - experience the world as men and women > experience the world as women. > > There's a well known workplace experiment where a group of men are put in > one room and given a task and a group of women are put in another room and > given the same task. The women invariably put everything on the coffee > table in front of them, lean forward, and work collaboratively. Meanwhile > in the men are choosing someone who will lead them, Mr Alpha Male then goes > and stands by the white board taking ideas from the room. Neither room is > being sexist, it is just how the respective genders like to work. > > I also can't help but notice that solutions being put forward seem to be > of the latter, male orientated 'from-the-top-down' variety. > > Marie > > > From: datzr...@alizeepathology.com > > To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > > Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 13:05:00 -0400 > > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] men on lists > > > > > Would anybody object to me hijacking this thread to use as a sort of > meta thread for what just happened? I have further questions and things to > explain and get feedback on. I can start another thread if wanted. > > > > This whole situation sort of reminds me of when I tried suggesting on > Wikitech-l that people make use of NVC and people were really offended. > Like there my intention was never to come off as condescending, but > apparently I am just really awful at not coming off that way via email. I'd > like to work on that and also find out what sort of things men on this list > can do to make the environment better are and in specific myself. I think a > polite discussion of what just happened would help advance all of those > goals. > > > > Thank you, > > Derric Atzrott > > > > > > ___ > > Gendergap mailing list > > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Preprint on cross-cultural historical figures in Wikipedia, includes gender breakdowns
"Interactions of cultures and top people of Wikipedia from ranking of 24 language editions" http://arxiv.org/abs/1405.7183 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help (enWP)
Hi Jane, (Perhaps we should have this discussion on the grant page itself as well but) I do want to say that I disagree that this situation proves that step-wise editing might not help shy people. The student in this case chose to do their editing in a way which was comfortable for them. And the way they were comfortable editing was to do so in a sandbox. I think this is proof of concept that some "shy" people prefer to work in this manner and that accommodating them might help bring this population into the editor pool. I won't disagree that the *result* of this type of editing was a spectacular flame/reversion war that ultimately (probably) scared away a new editor; but was the fault 100% with *their* process (blob additions) or could some blame also be applied to the current culture of editing that disparages these kinds of additions? If we implicitly encourage this kind of editing by adding support for it, might this not change of the culture of wikipedia to make these kinds of edits (that shy people may prefer) more welcome, and potentially avert a culture clash like this in the future? While I personally do not like editing in this manner whatsoever, and I agree it carries some inherent problems, I think it's important to remember that since we personally are all editors, we're exactly NOT the kind of person we need to be recruiting- we have those kind of people already! Even if the vast majority of *current* Wikipedia editors dislike and wouldn't use these features, that doesn't mean it could potentially have a major impact on converting novice and "shy" editors. By the way, is there any plan to formally reach out to the teacher and student? -mvolz On Thu, May 8, 2014 at 11:17 AM, Jane Darnell wrote: > Thanks for the links! I find this interesting since I was having a lot > of trouble understanding an IEG proposal that I was reviewing: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IEG/Stepwise_Disclosure_Edition:_Wikipedia_for_shy_people > > Most people on the English Wikipedia have no problem hitting the edit > button, and a quick review of the talk page on Superspreader shows > that all of the people posting comments there feel totally comfortable > doing just that *except* for the student whose edits are under review. > Thanks to this case, I am now able to imagine a situation where this > IEG proposal functionality could be relevant. I believe this > particular superspreader case proves that publishing in "one blob" > like the student has done can potentially be disruptive, which is > interesting and puts that proposal into a totally new perspective for > me. > > I would in fact say that this case proves that the functionality in > the IEG proposal is, in fact, undesirable. > > 2014-05-06 14:17 GMT+02:00, Derric Atzrott : >> The discussion is located at the talk page for the article in question. >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Super-spreader >> >> >> >> Just to clear up where the significant on-wiki attention took place at (my >> first guess was User Talk:Malke 2010). >> >> >> >> Thank you, >> >> Derric Atzrott >> >> >> >> From: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org >> [mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of George Herbert >> Sent: 06 May 2014 01:03 >> To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the >> participation of women within Wikimedia projects. >> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Article about super-spreader might need help >> (enWP) >> >> >> >> This now has gotten significant on-wiki attention. >> >> >> >> List relevant but less important on-wiki (I hope) complicating factor - the >> editor who was felt to possibly be OWNing the article is User:Malke 2010", a >> female Wikipedian... >> >> >> >> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 9:29 PM, Sue Gardner wrote: >> >> Hey folks, >> >> On my phone, so I haven't read the talk page in question. But it looks like >> a new female editor might be having a tough time on this article: maybe >> somebody has time to step in and take a look? >> >> Thanks, >> Sue >> >> http://dynamicecology.wordpress.com/2014/05/05/using-wikipedia-in-the-classroom-a-cautionary-tale/ >> >> >> ___ >> Gendergap mailing list >> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> -george william herbert >> george.herb...@gmail.com >> >> > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
