Sam, So, gender display online != gender display offline, but knowing gender online == knowing gender offline? That's not how frames work.
Does knowing someone's gender increase bias? Probably. Because it's a biased and gendered environment we've found ourselves with. Does not knowing someone's gender remove bias? Not in the slightest - because area effect microaggressions are a thing, and a community built by one demographic has processes and standards optimised /for/ that demographic and /away/ from a lot of others. This idea - that women were the first to adopt pen names and so it's possible to avoid microaggressions and bias if you simply stay anonymous - is discriminatory in and of itself (if we have an environment where women have to hide who they are to contribute, the problem is the environment. Do not put the burden and responsibility of avoiding the discrimination on the people suffering from it). Moreover, people won't actually avoid the gender bias, just the extremes of it, because structures still exert their own bias. And, yes, structures /might/ not impose gender bias. But our structures /do/, implicitly and explicitly, in a million ways. When we have male pronouns as the default, when we have a system that is totally ignorant of the differences in sociological conditioning between different demographics (we have adversarial dispute resolution procedures and a clinical inability to control aggressive users. How do you think that meshes with Western, at least, gender essentialism?), we have a structure imposing gender bias. And that's the structure that we have, and arguing that there might be a universe in which this doesn't happen is not a useful argument to make. It's akin to dealing with an inferno in an apartment building by showing up and pointing out that, /strictly speaking/, buildings don't /have/ to be on fire. It's, you know, true, and that's nice, but it's not particularly applicable when our building quite clearly /is/ on fire. So let's get back to brainstorming on how we improve the data we have in this field, and our understanding of the dynamics and biases and makeup of the community, and away from "there could be a community somewhere where these problems are moot", please. On 7 March 2015 at 16:05, Sam Katz <[email protected]> wrote: > people's gender. does knowing someone's gender increase bias? My guess > based on the real life experiments is yes. > > On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> when what is known? gender discrimination? >> >> ---------- Original Message ----------- >> From:Sam Katz <[email protected]> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities >> <[email protected]> >> Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:28:55 -0600 >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers >> >>> does a wiki have single authorship (like the >>> original britannica) or multiple authorship? does >>> it value anonymity? is gender discrimination more >>> likely when it is known? >>> >>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM, >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all. >>> > >>> > why not for a wiki like Wikipedia? >>> > >>> > and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a >> ton harder" to deal >>> > with? >>> > >>> > thanks, >>> > Claudia >>> > >>> > ---------- Original Message ----------- >>> > From:Sam Katz <[email protected]> >>> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities >> <wiki-research- >>> > [email protected]> >>> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:22 -0600 >>> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender >> stats Re: Fwd: >>> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers >>> > >>> >> It seems to me you are extrapolating from >>> >> insufficient data. identity and presentation are >>> >> not the same thing, but I guess the question in >>> >> this context is "what is presentation in an online >>> >> setting?" "how is gender shown in an online setting?" >>> >> >>> >> That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have >>> >> "in a wiki like wikipedia" and it's a ton harder. >>> >> >>> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all. >>> >> >>> >> --Sam >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM, >>> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> > yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting >>> >> > >>> >> > in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably >> more >>> >> > important than how the attacked user might identify >> (or not) >>> >> > >>> >> > and again, this might be one of the reasons why people >>> >> > identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining >> surveys >>> >> > and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they >> "are" - >>> >> > just like many others who do not identify as (e.g., >>> >> > heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less >> safe if >>> >> > they say anything about their gender/s or sexual >>> >> > identity/identities... how come? >>> >> > >>> >> > sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in >> hegemonic >>> >> > positions would be willing to switch perspectives for a >>> >> > minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than >> 20%" - >>> >> > posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done >> away with, >>> >> > I guess >>> >> > >>> >> > as for another attempt at switching one's >> perspective, who >>> >> > are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or fluid >>> >> > identities, maybe? >>> >> > >>> >> > best, Claudia >>> >> > >>> >> > ---------- Original Message ----------- >>> >> > From:Sam Katz <[email protected]> >>> >> > To:[email protected], Research into Wikimedia >> content >>> >> > and communities <[email protected]> >>> >> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600 >>> >> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender >>> >> > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers >>> >> > >>> >> >> To those following: >>> >> >> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The >>> >> >> question of whether written communication has a >>> >> >> different way of relating than oral, in the >>> >> >> context of a wiki, which by definition is >>> >> >> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous >>> >> >> editing, is a valid question. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Anonymity and pen names were first used often >>> >> >> times by women. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> I will also note that in terms of interface biases, >>> >> >> Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons) >>> >> >> that use photos of their users as adornments, to >>> >> >> show what users have posted do worse than >>> >> >> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and >>> >> >> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is >>> >> >> a good first step towards answering it. If I was >>> >> >> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is >>> >> >> an important discussion to have. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond >>> >> >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman? >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely >> in real >>> >> > life and online. >>> >> >> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters >> addressed >>> >> > to "Dr Sir" etc. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real >> life, >>> >> > it has got somewhat >>> >> >> > better over the years. But getting involved in >> Wikipedia >>> >> > and its discussions >>> >> >> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we >> really >>> >> > have a gender gap?" >>> >> >> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?" >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > Kerry >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > -----Original Message----- >>> >> >> > From: [email protected] >>> >> >> > >> [mailto:[email protected]] On >>> >> > Behalf Of Sam Katz >>> >> >> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM >>> >> >> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities >>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on >> gender >>> >> > stats Re: Fwd: >>> >> >> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > hey, >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that >> gender >>> >> > expression >>> >> >> > online or indeed expression in general is the same >> as it >>> >> > is in real >>> >> >> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are >>> >> > trying to >>> >> >> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that >>> >> > indeed it may not >>> >> >> > have a gender bias directly if the structure does not >>> >> > impose it. >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <[email protected]> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >> >> Hi Frances, >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language >> where >>> >> >> >> personal nouns are gendered will always display the >>> >> >> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it >>> >> > from a >>> >> >> >> new dummy account. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and >> especially so >>> >> >> >> because community majority has not seen to >> changing that >>> >> >> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems. >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my >> cautious note >>> >> >> >> on gender stats >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> best, >>> >> >> >> Claudia >>> >> >> >> ---------- Original Message ----------- >>> >> >> >> From:Frances Hocutt <[email protected]> >>> >> >> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities >>> >> >> >> <[email protected]> >>> >> >> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800 >>> >> >> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on >> gender >>> >> >> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson >>> >> >> >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > Frances Hocutt <[email protected]> writes: >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > > One change that could address the latter >> incentive is >>> >> >> >> to change the >>> >> >> >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine >> grammatical >>> >> >> >> gender is not the >>> >> >> >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly >> assigned, >>> >> >> >> and then some men >>> >> >> >>> > as >>> >> >> >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive >> to set >>> >> >> >> their gender >>> >> >> >>> > preferences. >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > That's how it currently works, according to >> the manual, >>> >> >> >> with the default >>> >> >> >>> > gender set to 'unknown': >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> > >> http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or >> what's in >>> >> >> >> effect on >>> >> >> >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though. >>> >> >> >>> > >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My >>> >> >> >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong-- >>> >> >> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where >>> >> >> >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display >>> >> >> >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of >>> >> >> >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't >>> >> >> >>> need to change his gender in preferences in order >>> >> >> >>> to be described accurately where a female user >>> >> >> >>> would need to set her gender in order to be >>> >> >> >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different >>> >> >> >>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with >>> >> >> >>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user. >>> >> >> >>> >>> >> >> >>> -Frances >>> >> >> >> ------- 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 >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ >>> >> >> > 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 >>> >> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >>> >> 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 >> ------- 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 -- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
