Hmm. I get the error that the mailing list doesn't exist. But if you write here
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:WikiCite someone should be able to point you in the right direction. There has been activity there within the last month. Kerry -----Original Message----- From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Greg Sent: Saturday, 24 August 2019 7:13 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations Hi all- One more thing: on twitter, I was advised that this list and the wikicite google group were the best places to discuss research around citations. Although I would like to post about this line of inquiry to the wikicite group, it appears to be a private group. As an outsider, I have not been able to access/view the group content/or even see who owns the group and is the correct person to contact. I have mentioned that I can not access the group to the wikicite twitter handle, and received a 'like' (?) but no response, and nothing has changed. If you are a member of both lists, would you be willing to point to this thread from the wikicite group? If the group is not open to the public, at least the ideas will be there. Many thanks, Greg On Fri, Aug 23, 2019 at 12:01 AM < [email protected]> wrote: > Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to > [email protected] > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > [email protected] > > You can reach the person managing the list at > [email protected] > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. sockpuppets and how to find them sooner (Kerry Raymond) > 2. Re: sockpuppets and how to find them sooner (Kerry Raymond) > 3. Re: sockpuppets and how to find them sooner (RhinosF1) > 4. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Greg) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 15:57:15 +1000 > From: "Kerry Raymond" <[email protected]> > To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" > <[email protected]> > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] sockpuppets and how to find them sooner > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > Currently, to open a sockpuppet investigation, you must name the two (or > more) accounts that you believe to be sockpuppets with "clear, behavioural > evidence of sock puppetry" which is typically in the form of pairs of edits > that demonstrate similar edit behaviours that are unlikely to naturally > occur. Now if you spend enough time on-wiki, you develop an intuition about > behaviours you see on your watchlist and in article edit histories. Often I > am highly suspicious that an account is a sockpuppet, but I cannot report > them because I don't know which other account is involved. > > > > As a example, I recently encounted User:Shelati an account about 1 day old > at that time with nearly 100 edits in that day all about 1-2 minutes apart, > mostly making a similar change to a large number of Australian place > infoboxes. > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati > < > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati&of > fset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati > <https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati&offset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati> > > > &offset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati > > > > Genuine new users do not edit that quickly, do not use templates and do not > mess structurally with infoboxes (at most they try to change the values). > It > "smelled" like a sockpuppet. However, as I did not recognise that pattern > of > edit behaviour as being that of any other user I was familiar with, it > wasn't something I could report for sockpuppet investigation. Anyhow after > about 2 weeks, the user was blocked as a sockpuppet. Someone must have > noticed and figured out the other account: > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meganesia/ > Archive > > > > Two weeks and 1,279 edits later . that's over 1000 possibly problematic > edits after I first suspected them. But that's nothing compared with > another > ongoing situation in which a very large number of different IPs are engaged > in a pattern of problem edits on mostly Australian articles (a few > different > types of edits but an obvious "quack like a duck" situation). The IP number > changes frequently (and one assumes deliberately). The edits potentially go > back to 2013 but appear to have intensified in 2018/2019. Here's one user's > summary of all the IP addresses involved, and the extent to which they have > been cleaned up, given many thousands of edits are involved, see: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IamNotU/History_cleanup > > > > As well as the damage done to the content (which harms the readers), these > IP sockpuppets are consuming enormous amounts of effort to track them down > and revert them, which could be more productively used to improve the > content. We need better tools to foil these pests. So I want to put that > challenge out to this list. > > > > Kerry > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 16:26:43 +1000 > From: "Kerry Raymond" <[email protected]> > To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" > <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] sockpuppets and how to find them sooner > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > To reply to my own question . > > > > Can we find a way to create a "signature" of an account's pattern of > editing? Perhaps it might be a set of signatures, maybe one for the > categories that the account appears to be active in, another for the type > of > edit, etc. Then if these signatures were calculated for all banned accounts > or currently blocked accounts (or at least ones with a long enough > contribution history to make it worthwhile - we're not interested in > one-edit vandals), then we could have a tool that could be run to quickly > compare one account against the signatures of banned/blocked accounts as > well as the cumulative edits of a set of known sockpuppets (i.e. treat them > as a single account) to determine if this may be a sockpuppet case meriting > further investigation. I imagine that it would be too expensive > computationally to actually run comparisons of the contribution histories > of > all "bad guy" accounts against the suspicious account which is why I > propose > a "signature" approach (but I'm happy to be told otherwise). > > > > If we had such a tool and it proves reasonably reliable in identifying > likely sockpuppets (not asking for guarantees but close enough not to be a > waste of time to investigate), then we could routinely use it on new > accounts or reactivating accounts (i.e. possible sleeper accounts) once > they > have a long enough editing history to enable the tool to operate > effectively > to provide automated early warning of new/reactivating accounts appearing > suspiciously similar to "bad guy" accounts. > > > > But this is a hard problem, both technically and socially (Assume Good > Faith, Privacy, etc), so I welcome the thoughts of others. > > > > Kerry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 07:43:29 +0100 > From: RhinosF1 <[email protected]> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > <[email protected]>, [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] sockpuppets and how to find them sooner > Message-ID: > <CAK3HvEMj8VCPu+uVUmPW+RepJ6E-OULaLPA15ALv9C= > [email protected]> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Just a note that you can still go through warnings for vandalism etc. and > report to AIV. > > Or at that edit speed, you may have a chance at AN at reporting for > bot-like edits which will draw attention to the account. > > If you ever need help, things like #wikipedia-en-help on Freenode IRC exist > so you can ask other users. > > RhinosF1 > Miraheze Volunteer > > On Fri, 23 Aug 2019 at 06:57, Kerry Raymond <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Currently, to open a sockpuppet investigation, you must name the two (or > > more) accounts that you believe to be sockpuppets with "clear, > behavioural > > evidence of sock puppetry" which is typically in the form of pairs of > edits > > that demonstrate similar edit behaviours that are unlikely to naturally > > occur. Now if you spend enough time on-wiki, you develop an intuition > about > > behaviours you see on your watchlist and in article edit histories. > Often I > > am highly suspicious that an account is a sockpuppet, but I cannot report > > them because I don't know which other account is involved. > > > > > > > > As a example, I recently encounted User:Shelati an account about 1 day > old > > at that time with nearly 100 edits in that day all about 1-2 minutes > apart, > > mostly making a similar change to a large number of Australian place > > infoboxes. > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati > > < > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati&of > > fset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati > > < > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Shelati&offset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati > > > > > > > &offset=20190728053057&limit=100&target=Shelati > > > > > > > > Genuine new users do not edit that quickly, do not use templates and do > not > > mess structurally with infoboxes (at most they try to change the values). > > It > > "smelled" like a sockpuppet. However, as I did not recognise that pattern > > of > > edit behaviour as being that of any other user I was familiar with, it > > wasn't something I could report for sockpuppet investigation. Anyhow > after > > about 2 weeks, the user was blocked as a sockpuppet. Someone must have > > noticed and figured out the other account: > > > > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Meganesia/ > > Archive > > > > > > > > Two weeks and 1,279 edits later . that's over 1000 possibly problematic > > edits after I first suspected them. But that's nothing compared with > > another > > ongoing situation in which a very large number of different IPs are > engaged > > in a pattern of problem edits on mostly Australian articles (a few > > different > > types of edits but an obvious "quack like a duck" situation). The IP > number > > changes frequently (and one assumes deliberately). The edits potentially > go > > back to 2013 but appear to have intensified in 2018/2019. Here's one > user's > > summary of all the IP addresses involved, and the extent to which they > have > > been cleaned up, given many thousands of edits are involved, see: > > > > > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:IamNotU/History_cleanup > > > > > > > > As well as the damage done to the content (which harms the readers), > these > > IP sockpuppets are consuming enormous amounts of effort to track them > down > > and revert them, which could be more productively used to improve the > > content. We need better tools to foil these pests. So I want to put that > > challenge out to this list. > > > > > > > > Kerry > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > -- > RhinosF1 > Miraheze Volunteer > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 00:01:15 -0700 > From: Greg <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > Message-ID: > < > caoo9dnsedtizqfuv3zkdyeudpw76ico_qpq1cyfbm8aho4g...@mail.gmail.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > Wow, Kerry! Thank you for taking the time to write all these thoughts out. > > I'm asking the question because I'm concerned that the gender balance of > the authors being cited on wikipedia is different from the already quite > bad patterns in academia. My fear is that the citation gender imbalance on > Wikipedia is more pronounced. If so, it is not just perpetuating the > problem, but making it worse by surfacing certain authors and ideas even > more frequently, or hardly at all. I would like to know if this is the > case, and if so, how big the effect is. > > In my last message, I mention a study about a set of award-winning > political science books (the researchers study the citation gender > imbalance for that set). I just saw this study today, but I began to think > that it/the set of works--or some similar set of titles--could possibly be > a good place to begin, especially if the original researchers were willing > to share the list of titles/authors/gender/etc that they put > together/worked with. Then it seems it would mostly be a matter of figuring > out how to understand how those titles are cited on Wikipedia--through > either the citation dataset or wikicite--to see if/how the citation > patterns differ (i.e., if the works by women/men are cited more > frequently/at the same rate/less frequently on Wikipedia than what the > researchers found in the original study). > > This seems like it would be easier to do than what you propose, but perhaps > the idea is not sound. Until very recently, I thought I could find the > answer in an existing paper! I honestly don't know the best way to get the > answer, but I would like to know the answer and think it's important to > look at. > > All of the things you bring up--from the gender of the editor, to the type > of editing being done, to the issues around multiple authors/paywalls/year > of publication/field--complicate the inquiry, and in particular a larger > one. I agree with what you say about doing something small first to see > what's there. > > Thanks again for all your thoughts. > Greg > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:41 PM < > [email protected]> > wrote: > > > Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to > > [email protected] > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > [email protected] > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > [email protected] > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..." > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > 1. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Greg) > > 2. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Kerry Raymond) > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Message: 1 > > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 18:47:48 -0700 > > From: Greg <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > > Message-ID: > > < > > caoo9dnvbrw_alkrup5kyfldaljuek+ddiz-a09mzwiotada...@mail.gmail.com> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > Hi Leila, > > > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > > > Having just read Troy Vettese's very powerful essay, Sexism in the > Academy > > ( > > https://nplusonemag.com/issue-34/essays/sexism-in-the-academy/), I wish > > this were a top priority. > > > > I stumbled upon a study today--it came up in the Washington Post's > > excellent series on gender bias in political science. The authors look > at a > > set of award winning political science books and the gender imbalance in > > the citations drawn from google scholar. I'm linking the piece here in > > case anyone on this list is interested now, or in the future, in how the > > patterns on Wikipedia compare. > > > > Washington Post piece: "There’s a gender gap in who wins political > science > > book awards – and in how widely they’re cited" > > > > > https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/08/22/theres-gender-gap-who-wins-political-science-book-awards-how-widely-theyre-cited/ > > "Just as significantly, women’s award-winning books receive fewer > scholarly > > citations than men’s award-winning volumes — and this disparity has > grown, > > rather than shrunk, in recent years. Over the entire period, APSA > > award-winning volumes by women averaged 43 percent fewer citations per > year > > than those by male authors." > > > > Paper: "Winning awards and gaining recognition: An impact analysis of > APSA > > section book prizes" > > https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0362331918300867 > > > > > > Best, > > Greg > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 3:44 PM < > > [email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to > > > [email protected] > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > > [email protected] > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > > [email protected] > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > > than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..." > > > > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > > > 1. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Greg) > > > 2. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Leila Zia) > > > 3. Wikimania 2019 disinformation meetup follow-up (Leila Zia) > > > 4. Upcoming Research Newsletter (special issue on gender gap > > > research): New papers open for review (Mohammed Sadat Abdulai) > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 09:57:15 -0700 > > > From: Greg <[email protected]> > > > To: [email protected] > > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > > > Message-ID: > > > <CAOO9DNuSYzzaVwcdqiWA7pj671z3N43XOSwv6DtW0SxWg= > > > [email protected]> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > > > Hi Kerry, > > > Those are all very interesting ways to look at this. I was thinking > > mostly > > > along the lines of your first bullet point, but I'd be interested in > > > research in any of those areas. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Greg > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 5:00 AM < > > > [email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > > > than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..." > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > > > > > 1. gender balance of wikipedia citations (Greg) > > > > 2. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Kerry Raymond) > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 20:19:18 -0700 > > > > From: Greg <[email protected]> > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > > > > Message-ID: > > > > < > > > > caoo9dnty+odo5oqrmzeg1nze-kynylwntd6acheytbyegk8...@mail.gmail.com> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > > > > > Greetings! > > > > > > > > I was looking for information about the gender balance of Wikipedia > > > > citations and no one I've asked knows of any work on this topic. Do > > you? > > > > > > > > I think this is an important question. > > > > > > > > Here's what I've learned so far: > > > > > > > > Wikipedia citations are currently in the form of text strings. There > is > > > > also an initiative to place citations in an annotated structured > > > repository > > > > (wikicite). I do not know the current status of wikicite or if/when > > this > > > > could be used for this inquiry--either to examine all, or a sensible > > > subset > > > > of the citations. > > > > > > > > My perspective is that understanding the gender balance is necessary > > and > > > > urgent. The balance could be better, the same, or worse than the > > citation > > > > balances we already know, and the scale of the effect is quite large. > > > > > > > > Is this a line of inquiry that the wikimedia/wikicite community is > > > > interested in pursuing? If so, what is the best way to get started? > > Does > > > > the WMF have the resources and interest to look into this matter > > inhouse? > > > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Message: 2 > > > > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:53:45 +1000 > > > > From: "Kerry Raymond" <[email protected]> > > > > To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > > > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > > > > > Could you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by the gender balance > > of > > > > citations? > > > > > > > > Are you talking about: > > > > > > > > * proportion of male vs female authors of the source material used as > > > > citations in arbitrary articles> > > > > * the quality/quantity of citations in biography articles of men vs > > > women? > > > > * the quality/quantity of citations in articles that are gendered by > > some > > > > other criteria (e.g. reader interest, romantic comedy vs action > film)? > > > > > > > > Kerry > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Wiki-research-l [mailto: > > > [email protected]] > > > > On Behalf Of Greg > > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 1:19 PM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > > > > > > > > Greetings! > > > > > > > > I was looking for information about the gender balance of Wikipedia > > > > citations and no one I've asked knows of any work on this topic. Do > > you? > > > > > > > > I think this is an important question. > > > > > > > > Here's what I've learned so far: > > > > > > > > Wikipedia citations are currently in the form of text strings. There > is > > > > also an initiative to place citations in an annotated structured > > > repository > > > > (wikicite). I do not know the current status of wikicite or if/when > > this > > > > could be used for this inquiry--either to examine all, or a sensible > > > subset > > > > of the citations. > > > > > > > > My perspective is that understanding the gender balance is necessary > > and > > > > urgent. The balance could be better, the same, or worse than the > > citation > > > > balances we already know, and the scale of the effect is quite large. > > > > > > > > Is this a line of inquiry that the wikimedia/wikicite community is > > > > interested in pursuing? If so, what is the best way to get started? > > Does > > > > the WMF have the resources and interest to look into this matter > > inhouse? > > > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 11 > > > > ************************************************ > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 2 > > > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 10:43:51 -0700 > > > From: Leila Zia <[email protected]> > > > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > > > <[email protected]> > > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > > > Message-ID: > > > <CAK0Oe2uCo70_=ma2b=2d+fvr4GseEVxOP0sh= > > > [email protected]> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > > > A few comments if you're going to go with "proportion of male vs > > > female authors of the source material used as citations in arbitrary > > > articles": > > > > > > * Please differentiate between sex (female, male, ...) and gender > > > (woman, man, ...). My understanding from your initial email is that > > > you want to stay focused on gender, not sex. > > > > > > * Unless you have reliable sources about the gender of an author, I > > > would not recommend trying to predict what the gender is. (As you may > > > know, this is not uncommon in social media studies, for example, to > > > predict the gender of the author based on their image or their name. > > > These approaches introduce biases and social challenges.) > > > > > > * Re your question about whether WMF has resources to look into this > > > question in-house: I can't speak for the whole of WMF, however, I can > > > share more about the Research team's direction. As part of our future > > > work, we would like to "help contributors monitor violations of core > > > content policies and assess information reliability and bias both > > > granularly and at scale". [1] The question you proposed can fall under > > > assessing bias in content (considering citations as part of the > > > content). I expect us to focus first on the piece about violations of > > > core content policies and information reliability and come back to the > > > bias question later. As a result, we won't have bandwidth to do your > > > proposal in-house at the moment. Sorry about that. > > > > > > I hope this helps. > > > > > > Best, > > > Leila > > > > > > [1] Section 2 of our Knowledge Integrity whitepaper: > > > > > > > > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Knowledge_Integrity_-_Wikimedia_Research_2030.pdf > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:57 AM Greg <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > Hi Kerry, > > > > Those are all very interesting ways to look at this. I was thinking > > > mostly > > > > along the lines of your first bullet point, but I'd be interested in > > > > research in any of those areas. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 5:00 AM < > > > [email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > > > > than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..." > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > > > > > > > 1. gender balance of wikipedia citations (Greg) > > > > > 2. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Kerry Raymond) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > > > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 20:19:18 -0700 > > > > > From: Greg <[email protected]> > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > > > > > Message-ID: > > > > > < > > > > > caoo9dnty+odo5oqrmzeg1nze-kynylwntd6acheytbyegk8...@mail.gmail.com > > > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > > > > > > > Greetings! > > > > > > > > > > I was looking for information about the gender balance of Wikipedia > > > > > citations and no one I've asked knows of any work on this topic. Do > > > you? > > > > > > > > > > I think this is an important question. > > > > > > > > > > Here's what I've learned so far: > > > > > > > > > > Wikipedia citations are currently in the form of text strings. > There > > is > > > > > also an initiative to place citations in an annotated structured > > > repository > > > > > (wikicite). I do not know the current status of wikicite or if/when > > > this > > > > > could be used for this inquiry--either to examine all, or a > sensible > > > subset > > > > > of the citations. > > > > > > > > > > My perspective is that understanding the gender balance is > necessary > > > and > > > > > urgent. The balance could be better, the same, or worse than the > > > citation > > > > > balances we already know, and the scale of the effect is quite > large. > > > > > > > > > > Is this a line of inquiry that the wikimedia/wikicite community is > > > > > interested in pursuing? If so, what is the best way to get started? > > > Does > > > > > the WMF have the resources and interest to look into this matter > > > inhouse? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > Message: 2 > > > > > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:53:45 +1000 > > > > > From: "Kerry Raymond" <[email protected]> > > > > > To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia > citations > > > > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > > > > > > > Could you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by the gender > balance > > > of > > > > > citations? > > > > > > > > > > Are you talking about: > > > > > > > > > > * proportion of male vs female authors of the source material used > as > > > > > citations in arbitrary articles> > > > > > * the quality/quantity of citations in biography articles of men > vs > > > women? > > > > > * the quality/quantity of citations in articles that are gendered > by > > > some > > > > > other criteria (e.g. reader interest, romantic comedy vs action > > film)? > > > > > > > > > > Kerry > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > From: Wiki-research-l [mailto: > > > [email protected]] > > > > > On Behalf Of Greg > > > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 1:19 PM > > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > > > > > > > > > > Greetings! > > > > > > > > > > I was looking for information about the gender balance of Wikipedia > > > > > citations and no one I've asked knows of any work on this topic. Do > > > you? > > > > > > > > > > I think this is an important question. > > > > > > > > > > Here's what I've learned so far: > > > > > > > > > > Wikipedia citations are currently in the form of text strings. > There > > is > > > > > also an initiative to place citations in an annotated structured > > > repository > > > > > (wikicite). I do not know the current status of wikicite or if/when > > > this > > > > > could be used for this inquiry--either to examine all, or a > sensible > > > subset > > > > > of the citations. > > > > > > > > > > My perspective is that understanding the gender balance is > necessary > > > and > > > > > urgent. The balance could be better, the same, or worse than the > > > citation > > > > > balances we already know, and the scale of the effect is quite > large. > > > > > > > > > > Is this a line of inquiry that the wikimedia/wikicite community is > > > > > interested in pursuing? If so, what is the best way to get started? > > > Does > > > > > the WMF have the resources and interest to look into this matter > > > inhouse? > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > > > [email protected] > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > > > End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 11 > > > > > ************************************************ > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 3 > > > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:36:17 -0700 > > > From: Leila Zia <[email protected]> > > > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > > > <[email protected]> > > > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Wikimania 2019 disinformation meetup > > > follow-up > > > Message-ID: > > > <CAK0Oe2sodYJpkuhSqgo3dtfDr= > > > [email protected]> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > This message is for those of you who attended the disinformation > > > meet-up [0] in Wikimania 2019 [1] or others who may be interested. > > > > > > * The notes from our meet-up are now posted in the bottom of the page > > [0]. > > > > > > * I was tasked to see if space.wmflabs.org is the place for us to > > > continue conversations about this topic. The answer is yes. Thanks to > > > the help of Elena Lappen, we now have a dedicated subcategory for > > > disinformation: > > > https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/c/research/disinformation . Feel > > > free to subscribe, watch, and/or post new topics if you're involved in > > > this space. > > > > > > * If you are new to this conversation, please read the purpose of the > > > subcategory at > > > > > > https://discuss-space.wmflabs.org/t/about-the-disinformation-category/949 > > > and welcome! :) > > > > > > Best, > > > Leila > > > > > > [0] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Meetups/Disinformation > > > [1] https://wikimania.wikimedia.org/wiki/2019:Program > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Message: 4 > > > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 22:43:53 +0000 (UTC) > > > From: Mohammed Sadat Abdulai <[email protected]> > > > To: Research Into Wikimedia Content and Communities > > > <[email protected]> > > > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Upcoming Research Newsletter (special issue > > > on gender gap research): New papers open for review > > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > > > > > Hi everyone, > > > We’re preparing for the August 2019 research newsletter and looking for > > > contributors. Please take a look at > > > https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WRN201908 and add your name next to > any > > > paper you are interested in covering. Our target publication date is on > > 31 > > > August 11:59 UTC. As usual, short notes and one-paragraph reviews are > > most > > > welcome. > > > For the August edition, we are planning a special issue focusing > mainly > > > on recent gender gap/gender bias research. (Upcoming special issues > > topics > > > may include health and education.) There are about 20 papers from this > > area > > > on our todo list which will all be covered in the August issue, either > > as a > > > mere list item or - with your help - in form of a more informative > > writeup > > > or review. They include: > > > - Analyzing Gender Stereotyping in Bollywood Movies > > > > > > - Breaking the glass ceiling on Wikipedia| journal > > > > > > - Breastfeeding, Authority, and Genre: Women's Ethos in Wikipedia > and > > > Blogs > > > > > > - Cyberfeminism on Wikipedia: Visibility and deliberation in > feminist > > > Wikiprojects > > > > > > - Gender and deletion on Wikipedia > > > > > > - Gender imbalance and Wikipedia > > > > > > - Gender Markers in Wikipedia Usernames > > > > > > - How do students trust Wikipedia? An examination across genders > > > > > > - Investigating the Gender Pronoun Gap in Wikipedia > > > > > > - It’s Not What You Think: Gender Bias in Information about Fortune > > > 1000 CEOs on Wikipedia > > > > > > - Mapping and Bridging the Gender Gap: An Ethnographic Study of > Indian > > > Wikipedians and Their Motivations to Contribute > > > > > > - People Who Can Take It: How Women Wikipedians Negotiate and > Navigate > > > Safety > > > > > > - Redressing Gender Inequities on Wikipedia Through an Editathon > > > > > > - Similar Gaps, Different Origins? Women Readers and Editors at > Greek > > > Wikipedia > > > > > > - Simulation Experiments on (the Absence of) Ratings Bias in > > Reputation > > > Systems > > > > > > - The Gendered Presentation of Professions on Wikipedia > > > > > > - Who Counts as a Notable Sociologist on Wikipedia? Gender, Race, > and > > > the “Professor Test” > > > > > > - Who Wants to Read This?: A Method for Measuring Topical > > > Representativeness in User Generated Content Systems > > > > > > - Women and Wikipedia. Diversifying Editors and Enhancing Content > > > through Library Edit-a-Thons > > > > > > Masssly and Tilman Bayer > > > > > > [1] Research:Newsletter - Meta[2] WikiResearch (@WikiResearch) on > Twitter > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > [email protected] > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 12 > > > ************************************************ > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Message: 2 > > Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 14:41:09 +1000 > > From: "Kerry Raymond" <[email protected]> > > To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" > > <[email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > Yes, that was my thought. It would be difficult to know the sex (or the > > gender) of an author name on a paper. There would inevitably be a lot > that > > you could not determine. And certainly in the sciences multi-author pages > > are the norm and even where you did know the sex/gender of all, do you > > assign some part-score? E.g. 0 for all male, 1 for all female, 0.6 for 3 > > women and 2 men. > > > > But I am curious why you are asking the question? That the > > writing/research of women is under-represented in Wikipedia citations? If > > so, without conducting any research, I'd say "yes it is > under-represented". > > But my reason would be because women are under-represented as > > writers/researchers in the first place. And certainly the older the > > source, the more likely it is to be written by a man. So to investigate > > gender bias in citations in Wikipedia, you would have to estimate the > > proportion of men/women (or at least their outputs) over time in a given > > discipline and then ask the question, "taking into account of the time of > > publication of a citation and the proportion of men/women active in this > > discipline at that time, do Wikipedia citations show a sex/gender > basis?". > > Hmm ... very tricky. > > > > I'd be inclined to suggest starting with a much simpler task. Pick a > > discipline (preferably one with a professional society who can tell your > > their estimate of current male/female ratio over (say) the past 5 years), > > limit the Wikipedia articles to topics in that discipline, and limit the > > citations to those published within the last 5 years. Indeed, perhaps > > limiting it to publications that are principally from the same country(s) > > as the professional society from which you get the data (as clearly > > men/women's participation in any discipline can vary with different > > countries for cultural reasons). Then you have some way to gauge whether > > Wikipedia is showing more or less gender bias in its citations than the > > discipline itself exhibits through publication. Quite a challenge! > > > > And of course, it is not Wikipedia that adds citations. It is individual > > contributor who add citations. Does the sex/gender of the contributor > have > > any correlation to any observed bias? Again, the task is made more > > difficult because a lot of Wikipedians don't identify their sex/gender. > > > > The other thing to be alert to is the difference in how (I believe) > > Wikipedians cite compared to researchers. As a researcher, I will of > course > > be reading papers in my field all the time and what I read will influence > > my subsequent work. Therefore when I write about my research, my > citations > > are referring to papers that I have already read and whose authors may be > > familiar to me from their other work, having met them at a conferences, > > private correspondence, etc. However as a Wikipedian, I am only partially > > operating that way (mostly when I write new articles or significantly > > expand them, that is, when I am doing the research). A lot of the time I > am > > adding citations relating to content other people (often new users) have > > added/changed without citation. These come up on my watchlist all the > time. > > What do I do? Of course I could revert saying "no citation provided", but > > that's not the way to encourage new contributors nor to grow the > > encyclopedia, so if the information seems plausible (not obviously > > vandalism), I will attempt to find a citation for it (using tools like > > Google and other topic-specialise search tools). This is what I call > "lucky > > dip" mode of citing as obviously I have no idea what the source was for > the > > original contributor. The sources I find from my search may not already > be > > known to me (frequently they are not). Or to summarise, IMHO, researchers > > (or Wikipedians in "new content mode") cite a source already known to > them > > and whose authors may be known to them and could consciously or > > unconsciously engage in some discrimination in citation based on > sex/gender > > or other criteria, whereas Wikipedians in "updating mode" are likely to > be > > citing a source not previously known to them and may be happy just to > have > > found a source and are unlikely to be spending a lot of their time > > researching the authors of that source to be extent they could then > > consciously or unconsciously exercise discrimination on sex/gender. If I > > invest any extra effort in such a situations, it's probably because the > > wording of the source is a close match to the Wikipedia article which > begs > > the question of copyright violation (which needs to be dealt with by > > deletion or rewriting) or being a Wikipedia mirror (which is obviously > not > > an acceptable citation). > > > > So I suspect whether a citation was added by the same contributor as the > > content it supports or a subsequent contributor probably makes a > difference > > to the likelihood of conscious/unconscious discrimination. > > > > Also, finally, often Wikipedia cites web pages and other sources that do > > not have any individual authorship, e.g. government websites. Remember > that > > Wikipedia prefers open citations over paywalled citations and a lot of > the > > publications behind paywalls are individually authored. > > > > Your proposed research has a lot of interesting challenges and a number > of > > limitations. I'm not saying don't do it, but I am saying start very small > > and see if you can find any evidence to support your hypothesis before > > embarking on a larger study. Because contributor behaviour is what you > are > > trying to study, you probably need to do both quantitative and > qualitative > > experiments. E.g. I have described the two modes of citation I do, but I > > cannot say how typical my behaviour is. > > > > Kerry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Wiki-research-l [mailto: > [email protected]] > > On Behalf Of Leila Zia > > Sent: Friday, 23 August 2019 3:44 AM > > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities < > > [email protected]> > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > > > > Hi Greg, > > > > A few comments if you're going to go with "proportion of male vs female > > authors of the source material used as citations in arbitrary > > articles": > > > > * Please differentiate between sex (female, male, ...) and gender (woman, > > man, ...). My understanding from your initial email is that you want to > > stay focused on gender, not sex. > > > > * Unless you have reliable sources about the gender of an author, I would > > not recommend trying to predict what the gender is. (As you may know, > this > > is not uncommon in social media studies, for example, to predict the > gender > > of the author based on their image or their name. > > These approaches introduce biases and social challenges.) > > > > * Re your question about whether WMF has resources to look into this > > question in-house: I can't speak for the whole of WMF, however, I can > share > > more about the Research team's direction. As part of our future work, we > > would like to "help contributors monitor violations of core content > > policies and assess information reliability and bias both granularly and > at > > scale". [1] The question you proposed can fall under assessing bias in > > content (considering citations as part of the content). I expect us to > > focus first on the piece about violations of core content policies and > > information reliability and come back to the bias question later. As a > > result, we won't have bandwidth to do your proposal in-house at the > moment. > > Sorry about that. > > > > I hope this helps. > > > > Best, > > Leila > > > > [1] Section 2 of our Knowledge Integrity whitepaper: > > > > > https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9a/Knowledge_Integrity_-_Wikimedia_Research_2030.pdf > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 9:57 AM Greg <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > Hi Kerry, > > > Those are all very interesting ways to look at this. I was thinking > > > mostly along the lines of your first bullet point, but I'd be > > > interested in research in any of those areas. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Greg > > > > > > On Thu, Aug 22, 2019 at 5:00 AM > > > <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Send Wiki-research-l mailing list submissions to > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > You can reach the person managing the list at > > > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > > > > than "Re: Contents of Wiki-research-l digest..." > > > > > > > > > > > > Today's Topics: > > > > > > > > 1. gender balance of wikipedia citations (Greg) > > > > 2. Re: gender balance of wikipedia citations (Kerry Raymond) > > > > > > > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > -- > > > > > > > > Message: 1 > > > > Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 20:19:18 -0700 > > > > From: Greg <[email protected]> > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > > > > Message-ID: > > > > < > > > > caoo9dnty+odo5oqrmzeg1nze-kynylwntd6acheytbyegk8...@mail.gmail.com> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > > > > > Greetings! > > > > > > > > I was looking for information about the gender balance of Wikipedia > > > > citations and no one I've asked knows of any work on this topic. Do > > you? > > > > > > > > I think this is an important question. > > > > > > > > Here's what I've learned so far: > > > > > > > > Wikipedia citations are currently in the form of text strings. There > > > > is also an initiative to place citations in an annotated structured > > > > repository (wikicite). I do not know the current status of wikicite > > > > or if/when this could be used for this inquiry--either to examine > > > > all, or a sensible subset of the citations. > > > > > > > > My perspective is that understanding the gender balance is > > > > necessary and urgent. The balance could be better, the same, or > > > > worse than the citation balances we already know, and the scale of > the > > effect is quite large. > > > > > > > > Is this a line of inquiry that the wikimedia/wikicite community is > > > > interested in pursuing? If so, what is the best way to get started? > > > > Does the WMF have the resources and interest to look into this matter > > inhouse? > > > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Message: 2 > > > > Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 13:53:45 +1000 > > > > From: "Kerry Raymond" <[email protected]> > > > > To: "'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > > > > Message-ID: <[email protected]> > > > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" > > > > > > > > Could you elaborate a bit more on what you mean by the gender > > > > balance of citations? > > > > > > > > Are you talking about: > > > > > > > > * proportion of male vs female authors of the source material used > > > > as citations in arbitrary articles> > > > > * the quality/quantity of citations in biography articles of men vs > > women? > > > > * the quality/quantity of citations in articles that are gendered by > > > > some other criteria (e.g. reader interest, romantic comedy vs action > > film)? > > > > > > > > Kerry > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: Wiki-research-l > > > > [mailto:[email protected]] > > > > On Behalf Of Greg > > > > Sent: Thursday, 22 August 2019 1:19 PM > > > > To: [email protected] > > > > Subject: [Wiki-research-l] gender balance of wikipedia citations > > > > > > > > Greetings! > > > > > > > > I was looking for information about the gender balance of Wikipedia > > > > citations and no one I've asked knows of any work on this topic. Do > > you? > > > > > > > > I think this is an important question. > > > > > > > > Here's what I've learned so far: > > > > > > > > Wikipedia citations are currently in the form of text strings. There > > > > is also an initiative to place citations in an annotated structured > > > > repository (wikicite). I do not know the current status of wikicite > > > > or if/when this could be used for this inquiry--either to examine > > > > all, or a sensible subset of the citations. > > > > > > > > My perspective is that understanding the gender balance is > > > > necessary and urgent. The balance could be better, the same, or > > > > worse than the citation balances we already know, and the scale of > the > > effect is quite large. > > > > > > > > Is this a line of inquiry that the wikimedia/wikicite community is > > > > interested in pursuing? If so, what is the best way to get started? > > > > Does the WMF have the resources and interest to look into this matter > > inhouse? > > > > > > > > Thanks for your thoughts. > > > > > > > > Greg > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > > [email protected] > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > > > > > End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 11 > > > > ************************************************ > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > Subject: Digest Footer > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > > > End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 13 > > ************************************************ > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > ------------------------------ > > End of Wiki-research-l Digest, Vol 168, Issue 14 > ************************************************ > _______________________________________________ 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
