Hmm. I think the subject of what you call "audience bias" is far more general than the tiny targeted area you're talking about. I'm pretty sure that readers from Poland are thousands of times more likely to access the Wikipedia article about [name any town in Poland] than readers in Indonesia are. I'm pretty sure that readers from all over the world are far more likely to access articles about people who are named in other publications, particularly the news media, than they are about notable but comparatively obscure article subjects who haven't recently been the subject of public interest. I do not think you have made a good case for considering the viewing of articles of male subjects vs. female subjects to be directly linked to "audience bias". We only need to look at the top100 articles viewed on any project to see that what drives page views is usually some event external to the Wikipedia projects.
Page view data is pretty readily available - it is available for every single page on every single Wikipedia (and probably for a lot of other projects too, I've just never checked). It would require some technical knowledge to write a script targeting page view information for articles in selected categories - such as page views of articles about women scientists - provided there is correct and appropriate categorization of the article. I'm the first to admit I'm incapable of writing such a script, but there are lots of Wikimedians who have such skills. It certainly looks like you are asking for ongoing research to be carried out on a topic that interests you (and, I am certain, a lot of other Wikimedians). I am unclear what this kind of metric would tell us about "audience bias" (or any other kind of bias, for that matter), but there may be value in better understanding the frequency of viewing of articles in certain categories and comparing them to related categories; for example, comparing the frequency of viewing of the average article about a female architect as compared to a male architect. It should be noted that there is also an inherent bias in that there are far fewer biographical articles about women in most categories, as compared to men. Risker/Anne On Wed, 5 Dec 2018 at 18:20, David Cuenca Tudela <dacu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi Tilman, > > I disagree with your appraisal that there are better venues for my > question. The gendergap mailing list is technically dead, before your > message the last one was from April. The other mailing list is related to > research, not to stats that should be readily available. > > From your answer (and the lack of more information) I understand that there > is a poor (inexistent?) tracking of audience bias. In my opinion these data > would be very useful to monitor how visitors evolve with more availability > of women's biographies. I have requested it to be added to the Metrics Kit. > If anyone else wants to endorse or comment: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Community_health_initiative/Metrics_kit#Gender_bias_of_audience > > Regards, > Micru > > > On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 2:22 AM Tilman Bayer <tba...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > > > Hi Micru, > > > > in general, there may be better venues to ask this kind of question, e.g. > > the Wiki-research-l and Gendergap mailing lists (both CCed). But for a > > partial answer, the paper by Marit Hinnosaar reviewed here looks at these > > stats (if not their long-term trend): > > > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter/2015/December#Does_advertising_the_gender_gap_help_or_hurt_Wikipedia > > ? > > > > E.g. "On a typical (median) day in September 2014, no one read 26 percent > > of the biographies of men versus only 16 percent of the biographies of > > women." > > > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2018 at 3:35 AM David Cuenca Tudela <dacu...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > > > > > Are there any statistics that track the evolution of page views of > > > male/female biographies in the different Wikipedias? > > > > > > Regards, > > > Micru > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > > New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com > > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > > > > > -- > > Tilman Bayer > > Senior Analyst > > Wikimedia Foundation > > IRC (Freenode): HaeB > > _______________________________________________ > > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > > New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, > > <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe> > > > > -- > Etiamsi omnes, ego non > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines and > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l > New messages to: Wikimediaemail@example.com > 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 and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia-l New messages to: Wikimediafirstname.lastname@example.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, <mailto:wikimedia-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe>