hi,
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > the current methods are far from perfect. > > in your opinion, in which respect do they need to be improved? > the thing is, with Internet research we often have to rely on anonymous declarations. It would be nice to e.g. cross-reference with data from social networks, but it is not possible to introduce ethically without user consent, and without the consent the problem of opt-in selective bias is still real. What we can do (and do) is triangulation of methods. > has anyone published on that, or are there any "non-published" links > available? > I think the most interesting approach to the problem is covered by Mako and Aaron: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782 best, dj > > best, > Claudia > [email protected] > Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 > - mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > From:Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- > [email protected]> > Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:58:56 +0100 > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > > > hi there, > > > > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you > > that a lot of data we have is outdated, and that > > there are way too many generalizations about > > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and > > Mako pointed out in their paper (referred to by > > Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our > > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods > > are far from perfect. As far as I recall, they did > > a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a publication > > coming up? > > > > best, > > > > dariusz > > > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM, > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer, > > > > > > hi all, > > > can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in > quantitative > > > studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for example, > and > > > also > > > changing the framework in which the data were created) > > > > > > another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of > > > languages, > > > statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which > language > > > version (community) the data were created in/from. > > > my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite different > > > from > > > results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another > > > differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a differently > > > gendered status in different communities, etc. > > > > > > the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of > Wikipedia > > > readers" question that this thread started with, > > > > > > best, > > > Claudia > > > [email protected] > > > > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > > > From:Jeremy Foote <[email protected]> > > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- > > > [email protected]> > > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600 > > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: > > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > > > > > > > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which > > > > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to > > > > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia > > > > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia > > > > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey > > > > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation", > > > > and is at > > > > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article? > > > id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 . > > > > > > > > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to > > > > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step > > > > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap > > > > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16% > > > > of gobal editors estimated to be female). > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > Jeremy > > > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen > > > <[email protected] > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > > What year are we living ? > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary > paradigm), > > > > >> well... > > > > >> > > > > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful > > > considerations, > > > > >> > > > > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An > > > ethnography > > > > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15 > > > > >> > > > > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes: > > > > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 > percent > > > of > > > > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] > This > > > figure > > > > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online > survey > > > > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 > complete > > > and > > > > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more > > > likely to > > > > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of > self-declarations > > > of > > > > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. > 2011) > > > may be > > > > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their > gender in > > > a > > > > >> community perceived as male dominated." > > > > >> > > > > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also > described > > > > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one > quoted > > > above) > > > > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist > any > > > > >> changes; > > > > >> > > > > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived > as > > > > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most > > > rewarding, > > > > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and > not > > > least > > > > >> quote from them persistently, too... > > > > >> > > > > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here? > > > > >> > > > > >> best, > > > > >> Claudia > > > > >> [email protected] > > > > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 > > > > >> > > > > >> ---------- Original Message ----------- > > > > >> From:Jane Darnell <[email protected]> > > > > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki- > research- > > > > >> [email protected]> > > > > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100 > > > > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > > > > >> > > > > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information > > > > >> > that could benefit Yana > > > > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > > > >> > From: Jane Darnell <[email protected]> > > > > >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM > > > > >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > > > > >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways > > > > >> > to increase the participation of women within > > > > >> > Wikimedia projects." < [email protected]> > > > > >> > > > > > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an > > > > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results > > > > >> > (translated to English) are here: > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd > > > > >> f > > > > >> > > > > > >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the > > > > >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers. > > > > >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51), > > > > >> > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6% > > > > >> > would not say (page 26) > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder > > > > >> > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > Hi all, > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia > readers? > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > Thanks, > > > > >> > > Yana > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > > > >> > > Gendergap mailing list > > > > >> > > [email protected] > > > > >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including > > > unsubscribing, > > > > >> please > > > > >> > > visit: > > > > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > >> > > > > > > >> ------- End of Original Message ------- > > > > >> > > > > >> _______________________________________________ > > > > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > > >> [email protected] > > > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------- End of Original Message ------- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > -- > > > > __________________________ > > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak > > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego > > i centrum badawczego CROW > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego > > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl > > > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej > > Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW > > > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii > > "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" > > (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa > > http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 > > > > Recenzje > > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml > > Pacific Standard: > > http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and- > > culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: > > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of- > > wikipedia The Wikipedian: > > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz- > > jemielniak-common-knowledge > ------- End of Original Message ------- > -- __________________________ prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego i centrum badawczego CROW Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 Recenzje Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml Pacific Standard: http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia The Wikipedian: http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge
_______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
