Re: [Gendergap] x% female, y% male. ???
Sorry if in aggravated state yesterday and ranting... Anyway, as listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force/research The study's talk page has ongoing discussions of people being annoyed about this issue. Probably first place any updates will show up: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012 Unless announcement shows up first at: https://blog.wikimedia.org/ On 11/27/2014 8:11 AM, Kathleen McCook wrote: At the end of this discussion is the query: we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey. We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but no data. What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after the survey ran? Are there any results at all? Is a copy of the survey available? --Thank you, Kathleen McCook ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] x% female, y% male. ???
On Nov 27, 2014 9:55 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: The study's talk page has ongoing discussions of people being annoyed about this issue. Probably first place any updates will show up: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012 I wrote there: See [http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/the-wikipedia-gender-gap-revisited Mako's study] which includes the initial numbers from before his changes. I thought the study results were already released by the time he did the study but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway at least there are numbers. But IMHO absolute numbers are not as important as change rates over time. (which has been the topic of debate among researchers not too long ago also) -- -Jeremy P.S. haven't read the arbcom case or any of the onwiki discussion but I generally support points I've seen on these threads from Sarah Stierch. P.P.S. Everyone who is having turkey, etc. today should enjoy it. :) ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] x% female, y% male. ???
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Jeremy Baron jer...@tuxmachine.com wrote: See [http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/the-wikipedia-gender-gap-revisited Mako's study] which includes the initial numbers from before his changes. I thought the study results were already released by the time he did the study but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway at least there are numbers. But IMHO absolute numbers are not as important as change rates over time. (which has been the topic of debate among researchers not too long ago also) -- -Jeremy Well, what we got in that study was a mathematical manipulation resulting in a convenient upwards adjustment of the 2010 UNU survey figures for female participation (from 12.6% to 16.1%), while the gender split of the Foundation's own 2012 survey was never published. And since then, the WMF hasn't conducted any more editor surveys. It's been two years: where are the figures, and where is the promised[1] data set[2]? The longer this carries on, the more the matter lends itself to suspicions that the figures were buried, because they came out even worse than the 8.5% and 9% from the two 2011 editor surveys. There is an easy way to counter such suspicions: publish the figures. [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012oldid=5354465#Results [2] http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/surveys/ (no sign of the 2012 data dump there at the time of writing) ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
