Re: [Wikimedia-l] Africa / Gender gaps (was Re: Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias)

[Anders Wennersten]

Our traditional way of creating article is based on the interests of the 
contributors. This produces skewed total result, and this becomes more 
evident on a smaller version like svwp, then on bigger. We have long 
come to the conclusion that we will never be able to fill categories 
like towns in Mali and basketballplayer in Brazil, where we have had 
something like less then 10% of entries then the same categories on enwp 
(or frwp)


Wikidata can be of help evening out, but on svwp we have (also since 
long) said we must work and have a more systematic and deliberate 
approach to fill out "empty spaces"


We therefore love Lsjbot which now generates several million good and 
comprehensive articles on geographical entities all over the world from 
the most complete database that exists, and where areas like Africa is 
getting exactly the same attention like a Nordic country. It is 
completely unrealistic to think that the few contributors on svwp would 
ever create the now existing  25 article on entities on Canada or 
16500 entries in Antartica. But the bias in the source means Djibuti 
only gets 4000 and Camerun 9000 but it is none the less a huge improvement.


For articles on woman/men project are being run by wmse and it now exist 
a group of dedicated contributors generating articles on women. I am all 
fascinated of sources being used, specially to get entries of women from 
middle of 19-th century. All famous ballet dancers in Copenhagen in 
1850. All women who had local fame in Finland around 1860, including 
local healers etc. They have now created many thousands articles and 
getting the rate of articles up to 20% of total (25% of the number for men)


So I believe skewness is becoming an important issue and that we need 
to  adress oit even if it means to let go the "holy rule" only manual 
created article are "real" articles, it is the need of our readers who 
should have priority.


Anders

[1] list of article generated by country this far: 
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Robotskapade_geografiartiklar
[2] latest article generated just now a river in Fiji 
https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mbau_Creek_%28vattendrag,_lat_-16,50,_long_179,08%29


Den 2016-04-20 kl. 23:30, skrev Florence Devouard:

Hello

Sorry for highjacking your thread, but reading your message, I wanted 
to share with you a small page I made a few days ago, to quantify the 
double gap Gender/Africa.


http://www.wikiloveswomen.org/about-the-project/mind-the-gap/

If anyone has additional links or studies that could be useful to 
further illustrate that double gap... I am interested.


Also, if anyone is interested in further exploring this data-wise, 
please raise your hand ;)


Florence


Le 20/04/16 09:39, alexhin...@gmail.com a écrit :
Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells 
us how many articles are biographies about women x 
language/country/culture.


In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an 
existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias? 
(Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD 
query about it?


I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% 
of bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous 
encyclopedia".


We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other 
databases existing in projects like Mix and match.


Can someone help? thanks in advance


[1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/


Àlex Hinojo
User:Kippelboy
Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 







___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines

New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 




___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
EEK women EEK ... I think we should accept that our heroes deserve
attention. Calling Emily a hero as in an achiever is not a problem. Emily
is certainly notable and she is more than a figurehead.

I do not have a problem with celebrating our own notable people. When we
do, WE have a problem.

Thanks,
  GerardM

On 21 April 2016 at 05:35, MZMcBride  wrote:

> Robert Fernandez wrote:
> >The argument that there is no demand for such articles is itself a stale
> >one, used to frequently justify gender disparities in all sorts of fields
> >and media.  There is a clear demand for such articles.  The media reaction
> >to Emily Temple-Wood's campaign to write articles about female scientists
> >is only the most recent and prominent example illustrating that the
> >audience is there.
>
> This is somewhat tangential, but
>  exists now. I personally
> find this to be both unfortunate and potentially ominous.
>
> MZMcBride
>
>
>
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[MZMcBride]

Robert Fernandez wrote:
>The argument that there is no demand for such articles is itself a stale
>one, used to frequently justify gender disparities in all sorts of fields
>and media.  There is a clear demand for such articles.  The media reaction
>to Emily Temple-Wood's campaign to write articles about female scientists
>is only the most recent and prominent example illustrating that the
>audience is there.

This is somewhat tangential, but
 exists now. I personally
find this to be both unfortunate and potentially ominous.

MZMcBride



___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] The WMAR's ad about Wikipedia

[Alex Wang]

Thanks for sharing, Anna!

Where/how does WMAR plan on distributing this ad?

Cheers,

Alex

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 3:50 PM, Pine W  wrote:

> Hola Anna,
>
> Me gusta el video! Además de la conciencia pública, ¿cuáles son sus
> objetivos para la campaña de publicidad?
>
> Pine
>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Anna Torres  wrote:
>
> > Dear all,
> >
> > After launching our documentary film about our community and editors,
> > Wikimedia Argentina is now launching an ad to reach new public and
> position
> > the organization in he mass media.
> >
> > Hope you all like it! You can find it here
> > <
> >
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Spot_%22Soy_Wikipedista%22_WMAR.webm
> > >
> > .
> >
> > Hugs!
> >
> > --
> > Anna Torres Adell
> > Directora Ejecutiva
> > *A.C. Wikimedia Argentina*
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
Alexandra Wang
Program Officer
Community Resources
Wikimedia Foundation 
+1 415-839-6885
Skype: alexvwang
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[Jane Darnell]

Actually I would say that is not true. The success of the english
Wikipedia's "Women in Red" project shows that editors are overwhelmingly
willing to close the gap, and only need to be pointed to the proper
resources to do so. When you say "closing the gap" I assume you mean
closing the content gap, because the participation gap is much more tricky
to solve.

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Robert Fernandez 
wrote:

> The argument that there is no demand for such articles is itself a stale
> one, used to frequently justify gender disparities in all sorts of fields
> and media.  There is a clear demand for such articles.  The media reaction
> to Emily Temple-Wood's campaign to write articles about female scientists
> is only the most recent and prominent example illustrating that the
> audience is there.  Readers want to close the gap, the media wants to close
> the gap, academia wants to close the gap, the WMF wants to close the gap,
> the only people who don't want to close the gap are stubborn volunteer
> encyclopedia editors.
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > When it is "SOP", why is it that you hear so little about the effects of
> > policies framed in terms of the rates we had or the rates we had in a
> > previous year.
> >
> > The argument that there is a gender gap is getting tired when the
> argument
> > why it is a problem is only framed in the existence of the gap. It is
> > necessary that we learn how and what improvements are made and maybe how
> it
> > has an impact on the reader numbers. When there is a demand for articles
> > about women, it could result in more readers for articles about women..
> >
> > I do welcome a different tack on this issue. The arguments so far are
> > getting stale.
> > Thanks,
> >GerardM
> >
> > On 20 April 2016 at 13:11, John Mark Vandenberg 
> wrote:
> >
> > > Yes. That is SOP for studies about biographies and literature in
> general.
> > > On 20 Apr 2016 18:04, "Gerard Meijssen" 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hoi,
> > > > Given the existing number of articles and the gender gap in them, it
> is
> > > > unlikely that activities make much of a difference. I think that it
> > makes
> > > > more sense to compare the new articles and see if the percentages are
> > > > different in those. Did anyone look at it in this way?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >   GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 20 April 2016 at 09:39,  wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1]
> tells
> > > us
> > > > > how many articles are biographies about women x
> > > language/country/culture.
> > > > >
> > > > > In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is
> an
> > > > > existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> > > > > (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD
> > query
> > > > > about it?
> > > > >
> > > > > I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki
> 12%
> > > of
> > > > > bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous
> > > > encyclopedia".
> > > > >
> > > > > We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other
> > databases
> > > > > existing in projects like Mix and match.
> > > > >
> > > > > Can someone help? thanks in advance
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Àlex Hinojo
> > > > > User:Kippelboy
> > > > > Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> > > > > ___
> > > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > Unsubscribe:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > >  ?subject=unsubscribe>
> > > > ___
> > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > Unsubscribe:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > > 
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > >
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[Jane Darnell]

I forgot about that one and it is still interesting, so thanks for
reposting! Out of curiosity I also made some queries about the delta factor
caused by the English Wikipedia's "Women-in-Red" initiative as opposed to
our own Gendergap-in-nlwiki initiative in the Netherlands. I wrote some
findings here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Women_in_Red/Archive_9#Some_results

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Magnus Manske 
wrote:

> I wrote about gender coverage on Wikipedia and Wikidata, including ODNB
> comparison:
> http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=250
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:39 AM  wrote:
>
> > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
> > how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
> >
> > In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> > existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> > (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> > about it?
> >
> > I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of
> > bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous
> encyclopedia".
> >
> > We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> > existing in projects like Mix and match.
> >
> > Can someone help? thanks in advance
> >
> >
> > [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
> >
> >
> > Àlex Hinojo
> > User:Kippelboy
> > Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[Magnus Manske]

I wrote about gender coverage on Wikipedia and Wikidata, including ODNB
comparison:
http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=250


On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 8:39 AM  wrote:

> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
> how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>
> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> about it?
>
> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of
> bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>
> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> existing in projects like Mix and match.
>
> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>
>
> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> Àlex Hinojo
> User:Kippelboy
> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
When it is "SOP", why is it that you hear so little about the effects of
policies framed in terms of the rates we had or the rates we had in a
previous year.

The argument that there is a gender gap is getting tired when the argument
why it is a problem is only framed in the existence of the gap. It is
necessary that we learn how and what improvements are made and maybe how it
has an impact on the reader numbers. When there is a demand for articles
about women, it could result in more readers for articles about women..

I do welcome a different tack on this issue. The arguments so far are
getting stale.
Thanks,
   GerardM

On 20 April 2016 at 13:11, John Mark Vandenberg  wrote:

> Yes. That is SOP for studies about biographies and literature in general.
> On 20 Apr 2016 18:04, "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Given the existing number of articles and the gender gap in them, it is
> > unlikely that activities make much of a difference. I think that it makes
> > more sense to compare the new articles and see if the percentages are
> > different in those. Did anyone look at it in this way?
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 20 April 2016 at 09:39,  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells
> us
> > > how many articles are biographies about women x
> language/country/culture.
> > >
> > > In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> > > existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> > > (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> > > about it?
> > >
> > > I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12%
> of
> > > bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous
> > encyclopedia".
> > >
> > > We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> > > existing in projects like Mix and match.
> > >
> > > Can someone help? thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
> > >
> > >
> > > Àlex Hinojo
> > > User:Kippelboy
> > > Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Foundation ED search steering group created

[Austin Hair]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Pine W  wrote:
> I think that I've said enough in this thread, so I'll pause my involvement
> here for the time being.

Fortunately for you, I actually read all the way through this thread
and got to this part.

Austin

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[Àlex Hinojo]

Thank you all for your considerations, URLs and comments. very useful!

2016-04-20 13:11 GMT+02:00 John Mark Vandenberg :

> Yes. That is SOP for studies about biographies and literature in general.
> On 20 Apr 2016 18:04, "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > Given the existing number of articles and the gender gap in them, it is
> > unlikely that activities make much of a difference. I think that it makes
> > more sense to compare the new articles and see if the percentages are
> > different in those. Did anyone look at it in this way?
> > Thanks,
> >   GerardM
> >
> > On 20 April 2016 at 09:39,  wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells
> us
> > > how many articles are biographies about women x
> language/country/culture.
> > >
> > > In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> > > existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> > > (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> > > about it?
> > >
> > > I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12%
> of
> > > bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous
> > encyclopedia".
> > >
> > > We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> > > existing in projects like Mix and match.
> > >
> > > Can someone help? thanks in advance
> > >
> > >
> > > [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
> > >
> > >
> > > Àlex Hinojo
> > > User:Kippelboy
> > > Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> > > ___
> > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > > 
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
>



-- 
--
Àlex Hinojo / Kippelboy
Programme Manager / Director de projectes
Amical Wikimedia
www.wikimedia.cat
@kippelboy / @Kippelboy_cat / @AmicalWikimedia
--
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[John Mark Vandenberg]

Yes. That is SOP for studies about biographies and literature in general.
On 20 Apr 2016 18:04, "Gerard Meijssen"  wrote:

> Hoi,
> Given the existing number of articles and the gender gap in them, it is
> unlikely that activities make much of a difference. I think that it makes
> more sense to compare the new articles and see if the percentages are
> different in those. Did anyone look at it in this way?
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 20 April 2016 at 09:39,  wrote:
>
> > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
> > how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
> >
> > In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> > existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> > (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> > about it?
> >
> > I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of
> > bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous
> encyclopedia".
> >
> > We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> > existing in projects like Mix and match.
> >
> > Can someone help? thanks in advance
> >
> >
> > [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
> >
> >
> > Àlex Hinojo
> > User:Kippelboy
> > Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> > ___
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > 
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Given the existing number of articles and the gender gap in them, it is
unlikely that activities make much of a difference. I think that it makes
more sense to compare the new articles and see if the percentages are
different in those. Did anyone look at it in this way?
Thanks,
  GerardM

On 20 April 2016 at 09:39,  wrote:

> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
> how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>
> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> about it?
>
> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of
> bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>
> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> existing in projects like Mix and match.
>
> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>
>
> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> Àlex Hinojo
> User:Kippelboy
> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] [Wiki-research-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[Jane Darnell]

I have often thought we should go through at least one volume of the 1911
Encyclopedia Britannica for this purpose. The cawiki is great though. I
always check the %female factor in all completed lists I have, so I also
checked cawiki in my TED speakers list, even though ca is not one of the
languages in the TED translation team. See the overall table of results
here:
https://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/TED_conferences

As usual, the Swedes score the best of all the European languages, but
cawiki still beats nlwiki by quite a bit.

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 11:23 AM, Tilman Bayer  wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:39 AM,   wrote:
> > Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
> how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
> >
> > In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> about it?
> >
> > I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of
> bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
> >
> > We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> existing in projects like Mix and match.
> >
> > Can someone help? thanks in advance
> >
> >
> > [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
> >
> >
> > Àlex Hinojo
> > User:Kippelboy
> > Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
>
> Interesting question. There may be more suitable venues for it, e.g.
> the research mailing list (CCed). Anyway, to start with two examples:
>
>
> http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/gender-bias-in-wikipedia-and-britannica.html
>
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/May#Notable_women_.22slightly_overrepresented.22_.28not_underrepresented.29_on_Wikipedia.2C_but_the_Smurfette_principle_still_holds
> Comparison of Wikipedia with, among other sources, "Human
> Accomplishment", a 2003 "ranking of geniuses throughout the ages and
> around the world based on their prominence in contemporary
> encyclopedias" (NYT)
>
>
> --
> Tilman Bayer
> Senior Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
> IRC (Freenode): HaeB
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> wiki-researc...@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[John Mark Vandenberg]

A comparison against classical sports biographical works, focused on
Australian sportspeople.

http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:301142
On 20 Apr 2016 14:39,  wrote:

> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us
> how many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>
> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an
> existing comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias?
> (Britannica, Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query
> about it?
>
> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of
> bios are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>
> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases
> existing in projects like Mix and match.
>
> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>
>
> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> Àlex Hinojo
> User:Kippelboy
> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[Andrew Gray]

Hi Alex,

I compiled some numbers for the Oxford DNB a while ago. After the most
recent update, they have 6630 female, 53260 male, so 9% female. (This
omits any group/family entries). I haven't crosschecked this against
the Wikidata figures but they should be broadly comparable.

Britannica (and most other resources we're linking to) can't easily be
done in Wikidata as we don't have comprehensive matching yet. However,
there's an older study which is probably relevant:
http://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/viewArticle/777

Andrew.



On 20 April 2016 at 08:39,   wrote:
> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us how 
> many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>
> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an existing 
> comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias? (Britannica, 
> Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query about it?
>
> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of bios 
> are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>
> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases 
> existing in projects like Mix and match.
>
> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>
>
> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> Àlex Hinojo
> User:Kippelboy
> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager
> ___
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 
> 



-- 
- Andrew Gray
  andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[Tilman Bayer]

On Wed, Apr 20, 2016 at 12:39 AM,   wrote:
> Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us how 
> many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.
>
> In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an existing 
> comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias? (Britannica, 
> Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query about it?
>
> I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of bios 
> are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia".
>
> We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases 
> existing in projects like Mix and match.
>
> Can someone help? thanks in advance
>
>
> [1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/
>
>
> Àlex Hinojo
> User:Kippelboy
> Amical Wikimedia Programme manager

Interesting question. There may be more suitable venues for it, e.g.
the research mailing list (CCed). Anyway, to start with two examples:

http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/gender-bias-in-wikipedia-and-britannica.html

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/May#Notable_women_.22slightly_overrepresented.22_.28not_underrepresented.29_on_Wikipedia.2C_but_the_Smurfette_principle_still_holds
Comparison of Wikipedia with, among other sources, "Human
Accomplishment", a 2003 "ranking of geniuses throughout the ages and
around the world based on their prominence in contemporary
encyclopedias" (NYT)


-- 
Tilman Bayer
Senior Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
IRC (Freenode): HaeB

___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

[Wikimedia-l] Gender gap on "classical" encyclopedias

[alexhinojo]

Hi, as some of you may know, the Wikipedia gender indicator [1] tells us how 
many articles are biographies about women x language/country/culture.

In order to compare these numbers...Does anyone knows if there is an existing 
comparison with gender balance in classical encyclopedias? (Britannica, 
Larousse...) or, if not, could someone prepare a WD query about it?

I think it could be a good argument for us to use: e.g "at cawiki 12% of bios 
are about women, compared to 5% in GEC, Our most famous encyclopedia". 

We could compare it also for temathic encyclopedias or other databases existing 
in projects like Mix and match.

Can someone help? thanks in advance 


[1]http://wigi.wmflabs.org/


Àlex Hinojo
User:Kippelboy 
Amical Wikimedia Programme manager 
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Foundation ED search steering group created

[Pine W]

Just a few comments more broadly about what I hope WMF will look for in an
ED:

(1) Realistically, I don't think that we're going to find a single human
being who can do everything that the WMF ED should do. With that in mind,
I'd like to suggest placing a lot of emphasis on this recommendation that's
already on Meta: "Proven track record for building great teams (can
properly evaluate people, make good hires)", and expand that to *building
great cross-functional teams* and *building great executive teams*.

(2) It's also important that the ED know when to cut losses. That means
that they need to have the courage and self-confidence to initiate
difficult conversations and make decisions when programs or people are
underperforming or are not good fits. Being a good manager often involves
being supportive, and it also involves holding programs and people
accountable.

I think that I've said enough in this thread, so I'll pause my involvement
here for the time being.

Onward and upward (:

Pine
___
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
New messages to: Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Re: [Wikimedia-l] Fwd: Wikimedia Foundation ED search steering group created

[Pine W]

I realize that Oliver has departed from this conversation, but since this
is a public discussion I wanted to respond to one point in particular,
which is "If we informed the candidates about everything that
had ever been discussed on the mailing lists, they'd die of old age before
we'd finished." I agree. However, the Meta page implies that there has
already been a decision that WMF will continue for the foreseeable future
as a 250+ person organization. Based on recent experience of what happens
when so much risk and responsibility is concentrated in WMF, and things go
very wrong at WMF, it therefore seems the current model of putting so many
eggs in one basket is ripe for rethinking.

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 9:46 PM, geni  wrote:
>They aren't. Its an incredibly bad idea to the point where people of
>significance aren't even going to bother engaging with it.

I'm curious to hear how you come to the conclusion that it's a bad idea. I
think quite the contrary. Perhaps we can discuss this in a new thread?

Thanks,

Pine

On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:14 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 19, 2016 at 7:05 PM, Pine W  wrote:
> > Ironholds, I think that you're taking a negative interpretation. It seems
> > to me that any ED candidate is going to want to know what they're getting
> > into before agreeing to take the job, and if forks are on the horizon --
> > whether planned or only under consideration -- then this is something
> that
> > they should know about. It also seems to me that the target skill set and
> > experience that WMF is seeking should take these issues into
> consideration.
>
> The interpretation I'm taking is that you're asking for complexities
> and slowdowns in an already slow and complex process. Is that
> incorrect?
>
> Yes, the ED candidate should know what they're getting into, but one
> mailing list discussion does not a probability or even a plausible
> possibility make. If we informed the candidates about everything that
> had ever been discussed on the mailing lists, they'd die of old age
> before we'd finished.
>
> It would be nice if the ED candidate had skills that could be applied
> to fork or delegate creation, sure, because it's always nice to find
> candidates who are overqualified. But that doesn't mean we hire for
> "must have skill at forking". That's not how skills work. We hire for
> judgment and experience governing similar organisations, and then we
> trust.
>
> The old job description does not include "must be capable of suing the
> NSA" - yet we managed to pull it off. Because what the old JD did call
> for was an awareness and interest in public policy, and sound judgment
> about what public policy issues put the movement and its goals at
> risk. We hire for broad areas, not narrow. The broad areas for forking
> would, presumably, be a desire to empower people at the lowest
> possible level, which is already part of the process - because however
> flawed we are at it sometimes (a lot of the time, really) that is
> inherently part of the movement's goals and principles.
>
> >
> > Andy, as far as I know there have been periodic mentions of this idea off
> > and on for years, but I'm unaware if the WMF Board is actively pondering
> > this issue.
>
> You're unaware of if the WMF Board is actively pondering this issue.
> None of us are. In fact, the only commentary we have on this issue at
> all recently is a single mailing list thread.
>
> Yes, it's been debated on and off for years. It's the very definition
> of a perennial proposal. And for what it's worth, I'm actually a fan
> of delegating elements of the organisation's activities or creating
> spinoffs! But that doesn't mean it's worth throwing in a job
> description or factoring into the hiring process for an executive
> director of an organisation that spent 18 months on ED hiring _before_
> it was systemically traumatised.
>
> > I'm revising my thinking as we continue this conversation and I
> appreciate the
> > questions.
> >
>
> Well, I for one won't *be* continuing this conversation. What I said
> to you was "that sounds non-trivial, please consider the disruption
> and misery drawing this process out is likely to cause people". And
> beyond saythat it's easier than it sounds - without, actually,
> providing any evidence that it's easier than it sounds - you've done
> none of that.
>
> As a community member, as a former staffer, as a human being, I am
> tired of conversations which, while polite on the surface, simply
> gloss over or ignore the actual human cost of decisions that might be
> reached, or the cost of even participating in the conversations in the
> first place. I asked you to factor these costs in. I'm not seeing that
> done. I'm not interested in engaging in discussions which lack that
> consideration, any more. Our limited time on this tiny blue ball is
> far too valuable for that.
>
> ___