Re: [Gendergap] Men's rights v feminists on Wikipedia in Washington Post
Ironically, all reference to Caitlin Dewey's ''Washington Post'' piece cited by Ms. Stierch has been swept away from the En-WP article [[Gender bias on Wikipedia]] by a tag-team. Tim Davenport /// Carrite Corvallis, OR Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2014 08:32:44 -0700 From: Sarah Stierch To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects. gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: [Gendergap] Men's rights v feminists on Wikipedia in Washington Post Message-ID: cakiglfowuxa2r_kk5sftdpzqj7ovocpfadf3arqq09biznx...@mail.gmail.com http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/08/04/mens-rights-activists-think-a-hateful-feminist-conspiracy-is-ruining-wikipedia/ -- Sarah Stierch ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia (WPO article)
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 https://web.archive.org/web/20130821015449/http:/www.wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipedia_Overview_15March2010-FINAL.pdf#page=8 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] Other (non -male or -female) Gender Knowledge for Study
Assuming that you are not studying the matter of gender self-identification itself (i.e. the dynamics of the count of the very small number of people who do not consider themselves either male or female), it seems to me that a survey over time should tally (self-identified) MALE / FEMALE / DECLINE TO RESPOND. The Decline to Respond category will be extremely significant -- a far bigger threat to generation of an accurate count than the loss of the fraction of 1% of Wikipedians who consider themselves neither here nor there on the matter of gender. This is, of course, not particularly sensitive to the many categories of non-male and non-female genders that exist in Wikipedia, which you apparently presume to exist a priori. Tim Davenport Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF
Kevin Gorman wrote: The case is ending with banning a bunch of women with flimsy excuses.. That's a gross misrepresentation of the case outcome. The case is ending with Carol Moore being banned off for reasons which should be obvious to anyone reading through the case documentation and knowing of her previous case before this Arbcom. Neotarf (who has made it clear that they have never identified as male or female) is being topic-banned from participating in the GGTF. Eric Corbett is going to be under a new regimen of non-appealable civility blocks under the aegis of Arbitration Enforcement. Sitush has been warned for his creation of a Carol Moore biography. That's pretty much it. No bunch of women being singled out and stricken for no reason. A couple people judged to be disruptionists are being shown the door. The summary Kevin makes is ridiculous. Tim Davenport Corvallis, OR ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF
Kevin Gorman: It's noteworthy that they are not non-appealable blocks. I honestly don't think this is beyond the scope of the list, although it's certainly a depressing topic. Allowing severe gendered slurs to be bandied about with essentially no penalty is likely something that is going to decrease the participation of women on ENWP - which is not a good thing. It bears repeating that what is a severe gendered slur in America is approximately 83.6% less potent as a generalized term of abuse in the UK and Australia.[1] I'm not going to defend Eric using the word cunt, however, he's well aware that he's in the metaphorical room with Americans and if he directs that word towards anyone again there will be repercussions beyond the usual wheel-warring and melodramatic debate... That's not the point I wish to make. Mr. Corbett's (virtually inevitable) future civility blocks will indeed be non-appealable because they are of specified length as part of an Arbcom ruling. Any reversal would probably mean the loss of tools — either those of the bad-blocker or the reverser, based on interpretation of the specific situation at Arbitration Enforcement, where the matter would inevitably go. Frankly, this approach would have solved the Malleus problem a long time ago. Incivility should be a block of specified and reasonable duration (viz., the one imposed on Carol Moore for her gang bangers rant). There are offenses at Wikipedia far worse than blowing one's top and being a jerk. Like systemic copyright violation. Like faking sources. Like mass subtle vandalism. Like repeated insertion of libelous text into BLPs. Like dramatic disruption of the project to score political points. Note well: in the matter of Mr. Corbett we are dealing with the issue of CIVILITY not the matter of THE WIKIPEDIA GENDER GAP. Tim Davenport Corvallis, OR ==Footnotes== [1] Yeah, I made that number up, but it's about right. ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Moving Forward
Is that addressed to me? Not sure. In any event, the first link doesn't seem to me either a lack of civility or a gender gap issue, but rather another one of the tens of thousands of more or less unimportant conversations that happen backstage at Wikipedia by people killing time in between contributing to the encyclopedia. That said... (1) Political organizing should happen off wiki, not on wiki. This is just as true for WikiProject Conservatism as it is for WikiProject Gender Gap Task Force. Wikipedia is not the place. Go for it, just not there. (2) GGTF misfired by obsessively identifying with civility patrolling as its primary function. At a minimum, that is putting the cart before the horse. Going further: I would argue that it is an an absolutely misplaced predilection, that a very low-importance contributing factor to WP editor gender disparity has been elevated into The Main Reason without statistical evidence. It's a hot-button topic at WP and it was a fight poorly chosen. (3) Here's what needs to happen: *A. Quantify and track the actual gender gap at WP over time.* Anecdotally, female participation at events like Wikimania is significantly greater than the 1F:7M ratio that would be anticipated from the estimated ratio of registered editors. Does this mean that the differential is exaggerated due to an undercount or under-self-reporting of female editors? Why are there not annual estimates made and tracked by WMF or by GGTF itself? *B. Survey to determine the actual reasons for participation or non-participation.* This is something GGTF can do. Analyze the editing patterns of randomly selected female and male Wikipedians, as well as those who decline gender identification. Then get in touch with each of these three sets to identify what they feel are the strengths and fundamental problems of the Wikipedia experience. Similarly, poll the M/F/Decline To Answer pools who fall inactive for six months as to the cause of their non-participation. *C. Coordinate pro-active recruitment.* Edit-a-thons, university outreach, etc. targeting new female participants. This is the main way that gender disparity will be overcome — one new editor at a time. *D. Targeted, organized mentoring.* Watch the new editor pool and target female newcomers. Help them through the learning curve. Too often newcomers of both genders are left isolated; bring them into the community. Count — Survey — Recruit — Teach. Tim Davenport Carrite on WP Corvallis, OR = Not sure if this will produce a new thread or attach to the existing one (I've checked my spam folder, there's nothing there) but anyway Tim: I just wondered whether you regard this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force#Moving_forward ...as a lack of civility or a gender gap issue? In particular this comment: ...As has been indicated on the talk page of the proposed decision, repeatedly, there is some question as to exactly which women this group seems to be reaching out toward, specifically, whether it is more or less of a more or less radical feminist perspective I thought it summed up in a nutshell what the GGTF was really up against. It's a kind of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism * Are you now or have you ever been a feminist who believes that sex work is the opposite of feminism? Anyone who answers yes that question is judged to be a radical, a subversive who wants to push POV and therefore they are fair game. On WP's list of feminists there were a very odd mish-mash of categories of feminist https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feministsoldid=544136790 and lots of names missing e.g. Gail Dines. I did a major rewrite to organize it chronologically and it meant that anti-pornography feminists, anti-prostitution feminists and socialist feminists could go onto the list https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_feministsoldid=545667727 The list has recently been changed to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_feminists and I'm working with a couple of editors to see how we can improve it further. I've largely avoided trouble by sticking to admin based work such as this, and similar work: Cleaning up bibliographies, e.g. Joseph Schumpeter, from this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeteroldid=633566034#Major_works to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Joseph_Schumpeteroldid=634343909#Major_works Creating an article for the International Association for Feminist Economics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Association_for_Feminist_Economics and improving the article for the Human Development and Capability Association https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Development_and_Capability_Association then creating biographies for past presidents of IAFFE and fellows of the HDCA. Adding DOBs to notable scholars and then adding them to Wiki's calendar (births). These organisations / individuals
[Gendergap] Moving forward
In reply to Kerry Raymond's post... QUANTIFICATION If all the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10% but there are anecdotes of a significant undercount from Teahouse volunteers and such and if female participation at Wikimania approaches one-third, would that not seem to fortify my point that there is a need for reexamination of the magnitude of the gender gap? What is the exact magnitude of the female undercount (or the male overcount)? This does not even bring up the matter of dynamics — is the gender disparity changing over time, and if so, which direction is it moving? There is only one way to find this out: study, study, study, survey, survey, survey... That WMF has its own editor gender data from 2012 that it is not releasing, as has been intimated, is annoying. Still: why is the GGTF waiting for San Francisco at all? Why is quantification and surveying not a vital part of the task force's mission? That there is an editorial gender gap is beyond dispute. But how big is it really and how is it changing over time? PROACTIVE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION So if edit-a-thons don't work, as you indicate, why is the WMF still spending money on them? Is it mere symbolism? I have noted from working with a college class at WP that short-term class assignments don't seem to create long-term Wikipedians. Students being students, they slam out the minimum required right before deadline and move along with their lives. I don't know what does create long-term content people, other than a passion about SOMETHING and a desire to share the information. Vandal fighters and quality control people may have a different motivation. Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that there is NOTHING that can be done proactively to pick the needles out of the haystack — that it is impossible for any bureaucratic entity to identify and activate the small fraction of 1% of people that will eventually become long-term Wikipedia volunteers. This would mean that the needles are going to self-identify by registering at WP and beginning work under their own volition. Therefore, logically, primary attention should be focused on identifying and cultivating new editors every day, nurturing the newbies as they start to navigate the technical and cultural learning curves. In which case, Ms. Stierch's Teahouse concept is 100% right on the money. And that's where the gender gap can be addressed, by making sure that every effort is made to teach and acclimate female newcomers in particular. As for edit-a-thons and outreach recruiting, I personally believe that any recruitment that is not focused on teachers and academics will probably not produce lasting results. I'm also pretty well convinced that long term Wikipedians are made one at a time. Tim Davenport Carrite on WP Corvallis, OR = Kerry Raymond wrote: A. All the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10% plus or minus a few percent. Of course, it is possible that in all of the studies the women are choosing not to self-identify. It is an inherent difficulty in any study if people choose to not reveal information. But we know women make up large proportions of social media users, so if womens participation in Wikipedia is actually higher than studies show due to reluctance to self-identify, it begs the question of why they are so unwilling to self-identify in the content of Wikipedia but not in other contexts. Either way, it points to some problem. The last Wikimania recently released data that does show a higher level of female participation, about 1 in 3, I think. It would be interesting to see how the male/female numbers break down across the various types of attendees, e.g. WMF staff, Chapter members, event organisers, etc. My suspicion is that women are in higher proportion among staffers, chapters, etc and this skews the Wikimania participation. I dont know how scholarships are awarded and whether women are at any advantage in that process. B. A very interesting research paperhttp://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf shows that women are less likely to survive the newbie stage than men. But, perhaps contrary to what many expected, their data does not suggest that women are more easily discouraged by being reverted (they show men and womens survival rates in the face of reversion are similar) but that more womens edits are reverted than mens edits and this is the cause of higher attrition among women. This has caused me to wonder if women as newbies are more attracted to articles where the risk of reversion is higher perhaps because there are more policies to be considered (e.g. biographies of living people, noting that women are predominantly the purchasers of celebrity magazines which deal mostly in content related to living people). The paper does show that men and women edit in different areas (men are more likely to edit in geography and science
[Gendergap] Arbcom election
Per Fae's message: OOPS, Absolutely correct, I had a programme error. Re-running this gives a more credible set of numbers: Total voted: 590 Total identified with gender: 255 Male 224 Female 31 So open males = 38%, open females = 5%. Which indicates that a good *guesstimate* of the number of women voting was 11%. I might also have skipped a voter, I think there should be 591, but I have given up on debugging that one. Fae I compiled an alphabetical list of voters for the thread on the Arbcom election at Wikipediocracy yesterday. I also came up with a count of 590 unscrutinized voters after filtering out all the redacted multiple votes. This represents a drop of at least 36% of participants compared to the 2013 election, probably more like 40% after a certain number of ballots are disqualified for failing to meet the editing minimums for vesting of votes established for the election. That's the big story of the election so far. I propose that GGTF attempt to (1) poll and (2) personally analyze the 255 ungendered voters as to their gender in an attempt to test the hypothesis that the count of women is underreported in official statistics. Those voting in the Arbcom election would seem to make a fine sample (albeit not truly random) of the 3000 or so core participants at En-WP. Tim Davenport Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] GGTF talk page
Ms. Stierch's comments are exactly on target. Do the GGTF-type organizing off wiki, not on-wiki. That's not the place for it. Start your own message board akin to Wikipediocracy. Organize (and vent) there. Use Facebook, etc. Concentrate on developing new feminist editors, helping them through the steep learning curve, with an emphasis on content, content, content. Nobody is going to have a problem with that. Tim Davenport Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 14:25:33 -0800 From: Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com My tips are: 1) No talk pages if I can avoid it 2) Other channels (sorry people, but not all revolutions can take place in front of everyone) 3) Social media I get more value asking for help on Twitter and Facebook than I do on any other medium. ANd that's why the WikiWomen's Collaborative was created - social media brings more females (since we use it more than males!). -Sarah ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] (no subject)
I for one would immediately be running the project through the Miscellany for Deletion process. You don't see anything slightly wrong with this idea? Really?!? This is 100% unadulterated identity politics. Tim Davenport Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO Corvallis, OR Is it simply impossible to start a Wikipedia project that's open to women, or people who identify as women? (I'm sorry if I don't use the correct terms, but I haven't kept up with them in recent years.) I mean if we did it... what would the consequences be? Lightbreather ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries. In London?
[Jonathan Cardy wrote:] I have no problem arranging the room, putting up a geonotice and being an attendee. It seems to me that Jonathan is a little unclear with Lightbreather's concept You are male. You make safe spaces unsafe by your very existence. You are not welcome. Go away. Sorry, well-meaning paternalistic friend, you just don't have the right chromosomes to play. Tim Davenport Corvallis, OR Corvallis, OR USA = Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:43:52 + From: WereSpielChequers werespielchequ...@gmail.com To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation of women within Wikimedia projects. gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries. In London? Message-ID: c1e74568-d89b-4462-88ff-b21063c6e...@gmail.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 It would be very easy for us to host a two hour session in London on a weekday evening at the UK offices. I am fairly sure we could get a bunch of admins and others to attend, aside from some of the London regulars who have agreed in principle, a geonotice would likely attract more. I have no problem arranging the room, putting up a geonotice and being an attendee. However I would need a volunteer to run the session. That isn't just because I'm the wrong gender to run such an event, but at the moment I don't know what changes in behaviour you would be hoping to train people into. Regards Jonathan Cardy ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
