Hi Sidney and everyone else, it seems to me that this list might be turned into a research ideas switchboard, here's some of my thoughts
my impression is that counting just two genders is outdated, and maybe calling a phenomenon a "gender gap" might therefore no longer be suitable, either, anyone have any ideas for a solution here? we might be looking into the dynamics of power games from a slightly different angle, maybe someone could do some in-depth interviews with Wikimedians officially identifying as male who are willing to reflect on wm-related situations where they would possibly have felt better off as non-males actually, this idea just emerged from the back of my head, where I found a previous thought experiment (from a Miscellany_for_deletion discussion on enWP) still lingering a bit, which started in this way: * meta: in-principle debates usually show how rules are made to work (and kept up) that have been defined by a majority of people. Now let's do a small thought experiment: Imagine that the [...] page is a lovely place to contribute to. Then imagine that any other page you in principle wish to contribute to is actually a place you do not wish to be on because the climate among users is unbearable to you. Next step: Please phrase the implicit rules that keep me off that page and make them explicit here. Let's see what everyone might come up with. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC) :WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK comes to mind. [...] 17:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC) ::Well then, given the thought experiment setting, why does just this one come to your mind, [...]? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC) :::The section please introduce yourself is a forum for discussion not related to building an encylopedia. It's social in nature with some ambiguous goals. I think frankly it is an attempt to set up her own quasi GGTF since her compatriots were banned. [...] 16:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC) ::::Thanks, and as for compatriots, next step in the thought experiment, [...], is precisely to now address that other, disagreeable, space and "phrase the implicit rules that keep me off that page", any ideas as to how compatriotism might express itself over there? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2015 (UTC) --- any thoughts are welcome best, Claudia [email protected] GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Sydney Poore <[email protected]> To:Dariusz Jemielniak <[email protected]>, Research into Wikimedia content and communities <[email protected]> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:49:05 -0500 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > Hello Dariusz and everyone else, > > I'm interested in sharing ideas about the best way > to discuss the gender gap in the wikimedia movement. > > While more information is always useful and at > times necessary in order to measure change > properly, if the previous data seems to still > match the day to day observations pretty well then > discounting the previous data as wrong just > because it is outdated doesn't seem sensible. > > Since I've had the opportunity to observe the > gender of wikimedia affiliated groups (both > official and informal) from around the world, I > can say with confidence that the wikimedia > movement is still dominated by males. Both on and > off line, except for diversity related events, I'm > often the only women participating in discussions > and rarely does the ratio exceed 3 in 10. > > To have my observation better documented would be > great :-) I hope that more wikimedia organizations > document the gender mix of content creators who > are affiliated with their organization so that > better research can be done. > > I encourage everyone to look at the up coming WMF > Inspire Gender Gap grant campaign and see if they > can find an opportunity to work on better data > collection during this high profile campaign. > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire_Grants_%E2%80%93 _Gender_gap_campaign > > Sydney > > Sydney Poore > User:FloNight > Wikipedian in Residence > at Cochrane Collaboration > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Dariusz > Jemielniak <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
