It is perfectly defined, it only matters which point of view you take. The Wikimedia movement consists out of people, projects and content. There is less content about so-called female topics. There seem to be less projects that specifically cover those so-called female topics. And there are less female contributors. All three of these views are related with each other.
And as I sometimes write about those so-called female topics, I notice it is more difficult to write neutral about those topics and therefore harder to write about. Further, I must say that I personally do not feel any need to disclose my gender, even while a lot of you have met me. Maybe it is different on some wikis, but generally I have the impression that many users do not want to disclose it either. So the percentage is less well defined, but I do think the m/f spread is far from balanced. But something what seems not to be defined is what those so-called female topics exactly are. And second, how large these subjects combined are in the outside world, because wanting them to be 50-50 is not fair if the subjects are 20-80 spread. Or maybe there are gender neutral topics also. So yes, there are certainly things that are not defined, but what the gendergap is, seems to be defined. Romaine 2015-01-03 16:48 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com>: > I find it interesting to discover via this conversation that it has not > been defined yet! > > On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Bence Damokos <bdamo...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Nope. Gendergap is about the gap in female participation, not in > > > female-related topics. > > > > > > > I would say it is both, but in either case this would be important to > > define if that is the criteria on which to solicit proposals. (The vision > > of Wikimedia is to share the sum of all human knowledge, so from that > > standpoint the end is to close the gap in coverage, diversity in the > > editorship is a very important means to it.) > > > > In any case, experimentation with the grants programme is probably for > the > > benefit of the community, but so is reliability and predictability. If > the > > original assumptions are clear, announcing a major policy change for the > > grants programme only with 3 weeks of planned lead time seems to go > againts > > those latter expectations unfortunately. > > > > Best regards, > > Bence > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines > Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>
