On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Jeremy Baron <jer...@tuxmachine.com> wrote:
> > > > See [http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/the-wikipedia-gender-gap-revisited > Mako's study] which includes the initial numbers from before his changes. I > thought the study results were already released by the time he did the > study but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway at least there are numbers. But IMHO > absolute numbers are not as important as change rates over time. (which has > been the topic of debate among researchers not too long ago also) --~~~~ > > -Jeremy > > Well, what we got in that study was a mathematical manipulation resulting in a convenient upwards adjustment of the 2010 UNU survey figures for female participation (from 12.6% to 16.1%), while the gender split of the Foundation's own 2012 survey was never published. And since then, the WMF hasn't conducted any more editor surveys. It's been two years: where are the figures, and where is the promised[1] data set[2]? The longer this carries on, the more the matter lends itself to suspicions that the figures were buried, because they came out even worse than the 8.5% and 9% from the two 2011 editor surveys. There is an easy way to counter such suspicions: publish the figures. [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012&oldid=5354465#Results [2] http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/surveys/ (no sign of the 2012 data dump there at the time of writing)
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
