Thank you Risker/Anne for this statement which I think is true: > (most editors do not gender-identify ... http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2012-June/002876.html
what follows from this is, in my opinion, that any specific-looking numbers the Wikimedia Foundation (e.g., Wikipedia editor survey) chooses to have published about how many women act as editors should not be trusted and hence not be perpetuated and best not in our list description, either... "The most recent Wikipedia editor survey indicates that the percentage of female contributors in Wikimedia projects is approximately nine percent." could this starting sentence be changed, maybe, to reflect the fact stated by Anne/Risker and not feed into such a seemingly negatively perceived climate in the first place? ah, yes, this is me again, trying to raise some awareness also about the promotional paradoxes in results created by patriarchally-inspired statistics exercises that purport to come up with facts, apologies if this makes you groan, maybe again, I will stick to my point though until I hear better arguments - which, certainly, I am happy to take on this point :-) thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenb...@w4w.net _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
