blah - English. I meant diverse sources of information. Sorry all. On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:39 AM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Bryce, interesting thoughts, > > can you quickly explain to me what you mean by "forms of information"? > > best, > Claudia > [email protected] > GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > From:Bryce Peake <[email protected]> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- > [email protected]> > Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:33:38 -0800 > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on > gender > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > > > Hello all, > > > > I agree with Claudia's point - counting two > > genders is pretty outdated when you look at all of > > the literature on gender AND sex as more fluid > > (scientifically speaking) than binaries do > > justice. This also makes me agree that the "gender > > gap" is a bad way to continue bashing our heads > > over this problem. What we want, methinks (please > > disagree), is an encyclopedia where people from > > any point on the gender/sex spectrum feel welcome > > to contribute, and where we have a space welcoming > > of -- and not hostile towards -- diverse forms of > > information. That would suggest to me that the > > ontological/count 'em all there approach to "how > > many editors of operationalized genders" is not > > confronting the actual problem (since some people > > just don't like to edit Wikipedia). > > > > Just an idea, then, to parallel Claudia's: we > > probably want a type of experimental design, where > > we can follow people from all across the > > gender/sex spectrum as they encounter, engage, and > > edit Wikipedia. Using those experiences, then, we > > can start to build *SOCIO*technical > > responses/mechanisms to mitigate the hostilities > > people experience based on gendered social > > dynamics (all without reducing people to poorly > > operationalized gender/sex binaries). > > > > That's not to say I don't enjoy massive surveys, > > just that they seem ill suited for the actual > > research problem. > > > > Bryce > > > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:21 AM, > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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 my impression is that counting just two genders is outdated, and maybe 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 > > > > ------- 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
