>
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:02:39 +1000
>From: Laura Hale
>To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
>
>Subject: Re: [Gendergap] what follows from "most editors do not
> gender-identify"
>Message-ID:
>
>
la...@fanhistory.com:
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Adam Wight wrote:
>
> > la...@fanhistory.com:
> > > Do you have any data to back up the theory that women will write women's
> > > content?
> >
> > I would hope not, actually!
>
>
> I would actually HOPE you did. The connection was made
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Adam Wight wrote:
> la...@fanhistory.com:
> > Do you have any data to back up the theory that women will write women's
> > content?
>
> I would hope not, actually!
I would actually HOPE you did. The connection was made by you. Only 20%
of biographies are about
la...@fanhistory.com:
> Do you have any data to back up the theory that women will write women's
> content?
I would hope not, actually! But a grassroots approach will give more people
the chance to express whatever it is that interests them, maybe join a few
mailing lists and committees, etc. Ma
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Adam Wight wrote:
>
> It's obviously too early to dismantle a gender equality project however.
> Maybe I can point to another factoid which demonstrates a generative,
> systematic bias: only 20% of notable person biographies on WP are about
> women [1].
This num
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Risker wrote:
>
> Laura is proposing the building of a dataset from publicly accessible
> information, and my comment relates to what information she will be able to
> derive from the publicly stated genders of the users working in the
> research topic area.
>
>
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:52 AM, wrote:
>
> fair enough,
> the "versus" reads a little strange to me in this context but never mind
> ;-)
>
> in my view of the matter, and my thanks to Laura for filling in with a few
> concrete examples, taking positive
> action in this context would mean, I gue
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:43 AM, Tom Morris wrote:
> I'm glad that a lot of what the Foundation seem to be doing is trying
> to be evidence-based and are analysing the effectiveness of the
> various interventions (Teahouse, FeedbackDashboard, AFT5). One thing
> that probably ought to be done is
On 18/06/12 09:52, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote:
in my view of the matter, and my thanks to Laura for filling in with a few
concrete examples, taking positive
action in this context would mean, I guess, to stop talking about any numbers
that we might have to
consider to be harmful - precisely: har
TomMorris writes:
> One thing
> that probably ought to be done is to demand of the Foundation and of
> chapters that any studies they do into the effectiveness of outreach
> and intervention programmes include gender inclusiveness as a measure
> in stats-gathering where possible.
maybe, as a fir
On 18 June 2012 15:36, Sarah Stierch wrote:
> Well, I'll be honest:
>
> I don't really care about detailed research unless it shows our numbers
> changing at this point :-) (better or worse)...
>
> I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment. So
> perhaps I shouldn't even
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Adam Wight wrote:
> Maybe I can point to another factoid which demonstrates a generative,
> systematic bias: only 20% of notable person biographies on WP are about
> women [1].
>
What should the ratio be?
~Nathan
___
A statistical intervention is always welcome, I believe. Thank you
for questioning the methodology, and insisting on a "margin of error".
It's obviously too early to dismantle a gender equality project however.
Maybe I can point to another factoid which demonstrates a generative,
systematic bias:
Claudia,
I understand where you are coming from. But talking about the demographics
of WMF projects at the level of detail WMF is going now is somewhat newish.
Not talking about the disparity in the past did not fix the problem. So,
drawing attention to the issue seemed like a good idea. :-)
I te
I feel I should clarify here. Most editors do not gender-identify in a
public manner on projects. There aren't many who have "This user is
female/male" userboxes (in fact, most editors don't have userboxes). They
don't use the male/female contributor categories. We cannot be certain how
many peo
Sarah, thanks
> I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment.
fair enough,
the "versus" reads a little strange to me in this context but never mind ;-)
in my view of the matter, and my thanks to Laura for filling in with a few
concrete examples, taking positive
action in
Well, I'll be honest:
I don't really care about detailed research unless it shows our numbers
changing at this point :-) (better or worse)...
I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment. So perhaps
I shouldn't even bother with this conversation. We all know we have few
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:07 PM, wrote:
>
> > I trust the survey.
>
> up to you, Sarah
> which part of it do you trust? the outcome given the chosen setup?
> I have to reasons, either, for any doubt about the results
>
>
I've had this conversation repeatedly regarding Wikimedia related data.
Surv
Thank you, Sarah
> Data doesn't equal patriarchy
agree, I was not stipulating this, I am pointing to the philosophy that feeds
into the setup of such an inquiry
in the first place
> I trust the survey.
up to you, Sarah
which part of it do you trust? the outcome given the chosen setup?
I have
Keep in mind the survey is people stating their gender in the survey itself,
not their userspace/account. When I take the survey I can choose a gender or no
response. (and maybe something else..I dont remember and I'm on my phone..) I
am sure plenty of people who do not choose gender on their pr
Thank you Risker/Anne
for this statement which I think is true:
> (most editors do not gender-identify ...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2012-June/002876.html
what follows from this is, in my opinion, that any specific-looking numbers the
Wikimedia Foundation (e.g.,
Wikipedia e
21 matches
Mail list logo
