[Gendergap] what follows from most editors do not gender-identify
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
Re: [Gendergap] what follows from most editors do not gender-identify
Thank you, Sarah Data doesn't equal patriarchy agree, I was not stipulating this, I am pointing to the philosophy that feeds into the setup of such an inquiry in the first place I trust the survey. up to you, Sarah which part of it do you trust? the outcome given the chosen setup? I have to reasons, either, for any doubt about the results my argument is to take a close look at the setup of any statistics exercise first and then ask, maybe, who benefits most from the results, and then we are well into partiarchally inspired politics, I guess, anyway, this is the point I am trying to make the task is, I think, to work on the following: which question would yield results that people on this list will feel motivated by to turn into sustainable positive action about a perceived gender gap among Wikipedia editors? And having numbers is honestly more powerful than saying oh most editors are men. well, given Risker/Anne's statement (most editors do not gender-identify ... no one knows, right? so my argument says that since most editors do not gender-identify, it would be wrong to say anything, really and hence any study of gender gap in Wikipedia (or any other project of its kind) had better rely on other data than these - which is why I think that in general such a discussion of basics might be useful for Laura's project, too - I'd say go for it, Laura :-) If you'd like to talk to the organizers of the survey, I'm sure they'd be happy to discuss it. thank you, yes, you were so kind as to give me the contact data last time I raised the issue here, for which thanks again I'd be more happy to discuss the matter more thorougly here first - or maybe anyone knows of another public forum which might be interested in this topic? Keep in mind the survey is people stating their gender in the survey itself, not their userspace/account. indeed, agree, and this is precisely why any implicit claims on the relevance of the results should not be writ large in our list description let us do away with looking at numbers first... as far as I can glean from discussions like the ones we do on this list, there is quite ample data other than numbers that allow us to address the phenomenon of a perceived gender gap in Wikipedia et al. and of course then take positive action to remedy any perceived imbalance best cheers Claudia On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:35:14 -0700, Sarah Stierch wrote Keep in mind the survey is people stating their gender in the survey itself, not their userspace/account. When I take the survey I can choose a gender or no response. (and maybe something else..I dont remember and I'm on my phone..) I am sure plenty of people who do not choose gender on their profile choose it anonymously on the profile. I trust the survey. Data doesn't equal patriarchy when it is the community who is choosing to identify their gender in said survey. And having numbers is honestly more powerful than saying oh most editors are men. If you'd like to talk to the organizers of the survey, I'm sure they'd be happy to discuss it. Sarah Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :) On Jun 17, 2012, at 11:22 PM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: 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 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap thanks cheers, Claudia koltzenb...@w4w.net ___ Gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] what follows from most editors do not gender-identify
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:07 PM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: I trust the survey. up to you, Sarah which part of it do you trust? the outcome given the chosen setup? I have to reasons, either, for any doubt about the results I've had this conversation repeatedly regarding Wikimedia related data. Surveys that I have seen on Wikimedia are often self selecting: people answer because they have a specific motivation to do so. There are no apparent efforts to find out how to make sure results are proportionally relevant. Thus, in a global survey of women on WMF, if there are 5 USA women responses about non-involvement and 1 in Indian woman response, the Indian woman's response really should be weighted at least FIVE TIMES the response of the USA responses based on proportionality, and the Australian response should be 1/15th the USA response when drawing nationality conclusions... Good sampling techniques are often not discussed. Beyond that, bad sampling techniques are often given critical support. If 27% percent of your female respondents identify as non-heterosexuals? Is that because Wikipedia attracts MORE lesbians or because the population answering was self selecting and more lesbians were motivated to respond? (I'd guess 10% would be about right, if not lower for the percentage of lesbian contributors on Wikipedia.) Beyond that, non-answers in surveys are not counted. Rarely do you see some one mention non-response as a category of response, or see follow ups that encourage people to fill in the blanks. This can be especially problematic if you consider that some people are culturally indoctrinated not to say anything mean, especially if they fear their survey responses may be made public. And having numbers is honestly more powerful than saying oh most editors are men. well, given Risker/Anne's statement (most editors do not gender-identify ... no one knows, right? so my argument says that since most editors do not gender-identify, it would be wrong to say anything, really I sat through some presentation on the gender gap in Argentina. The gender gap research done by a group with their own gender gap problems (not a single woman on the research team) never really explained this. I feel they made some rather faulty assumptions in their research, especially when they assumed there was equal non-gender identifying between genders with out explaining this... and this was then followed up by doing more extensive research based on userbox identification. The last time I looked, the number of men versus the number of women 486 to 90: http://toolserver.org/~jarry/templatecount/index.php?lang=enname=Template%3AUser+male#bottomvs http://toolserver.org/~jarry/templatecount/index.php?lang=enname=Template%3AUser+female#bottom. That puts total female users at 15%, not 9%. At its simplest, it is really hard to define the population characteristics of English Wikipedia. and hence any study of gender gap in Wikipedia (or any other project of its kind) had better rely on other data than these - which is why I think that in general such a discussion of basics might be useful for Laura's project, too - I'd say go for it, Laura :-) I like methodology discussions. :D Research design is fun. :D thank you, yes, you were so kind as to give me the contact data last time I raised the issue here, for which thanks again I'd be more happy to discuss the matter more thorougly here first - or maybe anyone knows of another public forum which might be interested in this topic? There is a research list, but it isn't particularly active and I haven't found them to be that interested in engaging in methodological discussions. It tends to be more calls for papers. let us do away with looking at numbers first... as far as I can glean from discussions like the ones we do on this list, there is quite ample data other than numbers that allow us to address the phenomenon of a perceived gender gap in Wikipedia et al. and of course then take positive action to remedy any perceived imbalance Positive action is always a good thing. I like doing, even with the occasional error, more than I like sitting around and talking about doing or reporting on things that won't lead to doing. (Which is a problem if you're trying to do academic stuff. Why not conferences? Because conferences interfere with doing.) -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] On Ms. Sarkeesian - tropes - and notability
Just thought I'd point out -- it's not just this list that is taking a stronger interest in Anita since she started blogging about her experience. Check out the number of page views the bio had in May vs. June (so far): May 2012: 648 views June 2012: 32,754 views http://stats.grok.se/en/201206/Anita%20Sarkeesian -Pete ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Holly Graf
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Holly_Grafoldid=476031995 This article, on a female Navy officer – apparently the first woman to command a cruiser in the history of the Navy – seems to exemplify some of the failings of what I call WP:ADAM: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:ADAM It looks like an article written to pillory her. Andreas ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] what follows from most editors do not gender-identify
Claudia, I understand where you are coming from. But talking about the demographics of WMF projects at the level of detail WMF is going now is somewhat newish. Not talking about the disparity in the past did not fix the problem. So, drawing attention to the issue seemed like a good idea. :-) I tend to think that information is powerful in that it educates and changes behavior. If anyone has suggestions as to how to make the research and data analysis better or just want a better understanding of how it is done, I encourage you to talk to the people doing the research. I have done this in the past and found them very approachable and more than willing to listen to ideas. Sydney Poore User:FloNight On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:52 AM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: Sarah, thanks I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment. fair enough, the versus reads a little strange to me in this context but never mind ;-) in my view of the matter, and my thanks to Laura for filling in with a few concrete examples, taking positive action in this context would mean, I guess, to stop talking about any numbers that we might have to consider to be harmful - precisely: harmful for swift and wonderful encouragement for *positive* action back to action, then including research ;-) Claudia On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:36:10 -0700, Sarah Stierch wrote Well, I'll be honest: I don't really care about detailed research unless it shows our numbers changing at this point :-) (better or worse)... I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment. So perhaps I shouldn't even bother with this conversation. We all know we have few women editing :-/ Sar Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :) On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:07 AM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: Thank you, Sarah Data doesn't equal patriarchy agree, I was not stipulating this, I am pointing to the philosophy that feeds into the setup of such an inquiry in the first place I trust the survey. up to you, Sarah which part of it do you trust? the outcome given the chosen setup? I have to reasons, either, for any doubt about the results my argument is to take a close look at the setup of any statistics exercise first and then ask, maybe, who benefits most from the results, and then we are well into partiarchally inspired politics, I guess, anyway, this is the point I am trying to make the task is, I think, to work on the following: which question would yield results that people on this list will feel motivated by to turn into sustainable positive action about a perceived gender gap among Wikipedia editors? And having numbers is honestly more powerful than saying oh most editors are men. well, given Risker/Anne's statement (most editors do not gender-identify ... no one knows, right? so my argument says that since most editors do not gender-identify, it would be wrong to say anything, really and hence any study of gender gap in Wikipedia (or any other project of its kind) had better rely on other data than these - which is why I think that in general such a discussion of basics might be useful for Laura's project, too - I'd say go for it, Laura :-) If you'd like to talk to the organizers of the survey, I'm sure they'd be happy to discuss it. thank you, yes, you were so kind as to give me the contact data last time I raised the issue here, for which thanks again I'd be more happy to discuss the matter more thorougly here first - or maybe anyone knows of another public forum which might be interested in this topic? Keep in mind the survey is people stating their gender in the survey itself, not their userspace/account. indeed, agree, and this is precisely why any implicit claims on the relevance of the results should not be writ large in our list description let us do away with looking at numbers first... as far as I can glean from discussions like the ones we do on this list, there is quite ample data other than numbers that allow us to address the phenomenon of a perceived gender gap in Wikipedia et al. and of course then take positive action to remedy any perceived imbalance best cheers Claudia On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:35:14 -0700, Sarah Stierch wrote Keep in mind the survey is people stating their gender in the survey itself, not their userspace/account. When I take the survey I can choose a gender or no response. (and maybe something else..I dont remember and I'm on my phone..) I am sure plenty of people who do not choose gender on their profile choose it anonymously on the profile. I trust the survey. Data doesn't equal patriarchy when it is the community who is choosing to identify their gender in said survey. And having numbers is honestly more
Re: [Gendergap] what follows from most editors do not gender-identify
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:29 AM, Adam Wight s...@ludd.net wrote: Maybe I can point to another factoid which demonstrates a generative, systematic bias: only 20% of notable person biographies on WP are about women [1]. What should the ratio be? ~Nathan ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] what follows from most editors do not gender-identify
On 18 June 2012 15:36, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote: Well, I'll be honest: I don't really care about detailed research unless it shows our numbers changing at this point :-) (better or worse)... I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment. So perhaps I shouldn't even bother with this conversation. We all know we have few women editing :-/ I agree with Sarah. The difference between 9% (the lowest estimate I've seen) and 13% (the highest) is pretty irrelevant compared to the difference between trying to go from 9-13% to something more like 25%. Further research seems kind of pointless: we know there's an issue, so let's fix it. A more useful avenue of research would be trying to find out what interventions might actually be useful in fixing the gender gap. It seems that a fair few people come to the gender imbalance and have a solution. Funnily enough, the solutions always seem to be solutions to problems they have with the wiki more generally (whether it's dodgy images on Commons or lack of civility or problematic notability standards). It's almost as if they have their hobby horse and they want to use gender as a new battleground for said issue. I'm glad that a lot of what the Foundation seem to be doing is trying to be evidence-based and are analysing the effectiveness of the various interventions (Teahouse, FeedbackDashboard, AFT5). One thing that probably ought to be done is to demand of the Foundation and of chapters that any studies they do into the effectiveness of outreach and intervention programmes include gender inclusiveness as a measure in stats-gathering where possible. -- Tom Morris http://tommorris.org/ ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Holly Graf
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Seems like another 1E candidate. The over-emphasis on the controversy at the end of her career can be addressed by wiping out most of the detail, or by removing the article entirely (since the notability argument is somewhat fragile, and all the references about the subject relate to her dismissal). Coincidentally, others thought that too! :) It was taken to AfD and the MilHist project determined she was notable based on her being the first woman to command the ship type. :) If you want to try that Nathan, you can but your efforts and the efforts of other men like Andreas are probably better spent improving the article about her to remove this material. I eagerly anticipate y'all working together on this article as you've both identified it needs work. :) -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com I've already edited it, but thanks as always for your confidence. ~Nathan ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Holly Graf
On Jun 18, 2012 4:38 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: your efforts and the efforts of other men like Andreas are probably better spent improving the article about her to remove this material. Are there efforts you would recommend for women that are different, Laura? Pete [[User:peteforsyth]] ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Holly Graf
Is that an edit of the article, or a whitewashing of the article? It turns out that she is most notable for the relief of command, and the blanket removal of material from the article is not adhering to WP:UNDUE, but seems more to be a whitewashing of the article. What you have done is removed any context of the dismissal from the article, and that is not a good thing. Russavia On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Laura Hale la...@fanhistory.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Nathan nawr...@gmail.com wrote: Seems like another 1E candidate. The over-emphasis on the controversy at the end of her career can be addressed by wiping out most of the detail, or by removing the article entirely (since the notability argument is somewhat fragile, and all the references about the subject relate to her dismissal). Coincidentally, others thought that too! :) It was taken to AfD and the MilHist project determined she was notable based on her being the first woman to command the ship type. :) If you want to try that Nathan, you can but your efforts and the efforts of other men like Andreas are probably better spent improving the article about her to remove this material. I eagerly anticipate y'all working together on this article as you've both identified it needs work. :) -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com I've already edited it, but thanks as always for your confidence. ~Nathan ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Holly Graf
WP:BLP: Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be balanced and fair to their subjects... regardless of what the media chooses to focus on. Clearly the article should mention the relief of command and the circumstances around it (apparently she had a tendency to swear at people), but it shouldn't constitute the major focus of her biography. Ryan Kaldari On 6/18/12 1:50 PM, Russavia wrote: Is that an edit of the article, or a whitewashing of the article? It turns out that she is most notable for the relief of command, and the blanket removal of material from the article is not adhering to WP:UNDUE, but seems more to be a whitewashing of the article. What you have done is removed any context of the dismissal from the article, and that is not a good thing. Russavia On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 4:40 AM, Nathannawr...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:38 PM, Laura Halela...@fanhistory.com wrote: On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:29 PM, Nathannawr...@gmail.com wrote: Seems like another 1E candidate. The over-emphasis on the controversy at the end of her career can be addressed by wiping out most of the detail, or by removing the article entirely (since the notability argument is somewhat fragile, and all the references about the subject relate to her dismissal). Coincidentally, others thought that too! :) It was taken to AfD and the MilHist project determined she was notable based on her being the first woman to command the ship type. :) If you want to try that Nathan, you can but your efforts and the efforts of other men like Andreas are probably better spent improving the article about her to remove this material. I eagerly anticipate y'all working together on this article as you've both identified it needs work. :) -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com I've already edited it, but thanks as always for your confidence. ~Nathan ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Holly Graf
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:50 PM, Russavia russavia.wikipe...@gmail.comwrote: Is that an edit of the article, or a whitewashing of the article? It turns out that she is most notable for the relief of command, and the blanket removal of material from the article is not adhering to WP:UNDUE, but seems more to be a whitewashing of the article. What you have done is removed any context of the dismissal from the article, and that is not a good thing. Russavia How so? The premise of the AfD outcome (and the general argument in favor of the subject's notability) is that she is notable for more than just her dismissal. So, focusing virtually the entire article on her dismissal is giving it UNDUE weight. I reduced the unnecessary detail and left in the pertinent elements - she was dismissed, it was because certain allegations were upheld by her commanding officers, and all of the anonymous sniping can still be found in the linked references. ~Nathan ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] what follows from most editors do not gender-identify
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:52 AM, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: fair enough, the versus reads a little strange to me in this context but never mind ;-) in my view of the matter, and my thanks to Laura for filling in with a few concrete examples, taking positive action in this context would mean, I guess, to stop talking about any numbers that we might have to consider to be harmful - precisely: harmful for swift and wonderful encouragement for *positive* action I don't think it is a case of talking about harmful actions, but making sure if we're going to act on research, we understand the research methodologies and their weakness... and that if we're working towards solutions and needing to do research to understand a problem in order to do something, we talk about best research practices for conducting that research. :) A lot of people, especially in a grant funding context, may need research to validate their willingness to fund action. This is when things matter A LOT. Listening to what those people tells you is even more important. My government contacts ask ROI for investing on Wikipedia and I say page views. They say not good enough: Develop a new metric. Thus, I do. On a side note for interesting data I've come across I was telling some one that page views matter and one of the reasons I like English Wikinews more than editing English Wikipedia is you can see an immediate result and impact by covering a topic that gets little coverage. I went to look at the numbers as I've been working rather hard on Australian water polo news this month. This is the following list of articles I have ever written about the Australian women's national water polo team and their page views on English Wikinews for the past 30 days: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Australian_Stingers_stung_by_US_at_FINA_World_League_Final_gold_medal_match - 1340 views http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Australian_women_to_meet_USA_in_water_polo%27s_FINA_Women%27s_World_League_Super_Finals_gold_medal_game- 1527 views http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Australia_women%27s_water_polo_team_into_FINA_Women%27s_World_League_Super_Finals_semi_finals- 1212 views http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Australia_women%27s_water_polo_team_into_FINA_Women%27s_World_League_Super_Finals_quarter_finals- 1274 views http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Australian_women_win_VISA_Water_Polo_International- 468 views http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Australian_women%27s_water_polo_team_takes_test_series_against_Great_Britain- 263 views Compare that to the Wikipedia article about the team: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_women%27s_national_water_polo_team - 1207 views If I include every article about the national team, I get closer to those Wikinews totals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zoe_Arancini - 195 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemma_Beadsworth - 469 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rowena_Webster - 367 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holly_Lincoln-Smith - 357 times http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronwen_Knox - 358 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kate_Gynther - 271 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Buckling - 221 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_Brown_(water_polo) - 315 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isobel_Bishop - 351 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_McCormack - 320 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Moran - 258 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glencora_Ralph - 225 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melissa_Rippon - 242 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sophie_Smith - 323 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashleigh_Southern - 230 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelsey_Wakefield - 168 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Zagame - 447 views http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greg_McFadden - 162 views 6,486 total views spread out across 19 articles compared to roughly 5,700 views spread out across six articles. I love my Wikipedia work, but it feels better recognised and, at times, more lasting on Wikinews than Wikipedia. As some one writing about women, there are just more ways and easier ways to do this on Wikinews, plus more page views and original research. -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] what follows from most editors do not gender-identify
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 12:55 AM, Risker risker...@gmail.com wrote: Laura is proposing the building of a dataset from publicly accessible information, and my comment relates to what information she will be able to derive from the publicly stated genders of the users working in the research topic area. I'm not going to do any research on women's participation if the postdoc paper work goes through. :) Who participates is probably completely irrelevant to my research. Rather, the question is: What influence does Wikipedia have CONTENT WISE on people's thought formation on a topic? In this case, the topic is narrowly defined as women's sport in Australia. If an article is written by men or women, it is unlikely to impact the overall perception of what people think of a topic unless there is some adequate theory being put forth based on research that in the case of Australian women's sport articles, the gender of the participants / editors impacts on content in such a way as to do that on scale. (For example, I've been one of the major writers of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lauren_Jackson and from the names involved, I am pretty certain http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samantha_Stosur has been written mostly by male contributors. Is there anything that would make you go FEMALE and MALE written article that if you were reading articles in your sport specific niche, these styles would impact your point of view about Wikipedia as a whole? I just don't think I've seen anything like that. In another area, if we were comparing articles about pornography to articles about education, maybe.) Sincerely, Laura Hale -- mobile: 0412183663 twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] what follows from most editors do not gender-identify
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Adam Wight s...@ludd.net wrote: It's obviously too early to dismantle a gender equality project however. Maybe I can point to another factoid which demonstrates a generative, systematic bias: only 20% of notable person biographies on WP are about women [1]. This number feels isolated, too big and there are obvious holes. A lot of articles don't describe gender. I'd be curious as to which methods are being done to identify which articles are about women versus which articles are about men? More importantly, I'd like to see these numbers broken down. I strongly suspect in certain geographic and topic areas, there is much more likely to be parity than in other areas. (Olympic medalists from 2008 are probably covered in terms of existence equally well. I would guess the number of male softball players would be UNDER represented as a function of notability. I'd also guess women from Africa are less likely to have articles if they are notable than say women from the United States.) This sort of in-depth look is probably MORE important at the end of the day than the 20% because it gives a clear path to guidance of areas to fix. IMO, recruiting more women editors is an excellent way to combat that bias, because it doesn't presuppose we know how to fix the problem... only that we know some people who can do the job. At the end of the day, I'd need to see data which supports this as a theory. I've been involved in the fan fiction writing community for more years than I would care to count before taking a two year break. The community probably has the inverse gender proportion of English Wikipedia. One of the CONTINUAL problems is that women do not write about female characters. They often ignore them. More women write male/male erotica inside the female dominated fan fiction community than women write female/female erotica. (And in some communities, female writers of male/male fan fiction outnumber the female writers of male/female fan fiction inside a specific fan community.) I know of a few female contributors who edit sport articles, but rarely edit women's sport articles. Do you have any data to back up the theory that women will write women's content? Sincerely, Laura Hale -- mobile: 0412183663 twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] what follows from most editors do not gender-identify
la...@fanhistory.com: Do you have any data to back up the theory that women will write women's content? I would hope not, actually! But a grassroots approach will give more people the chance to express whatever it is that interests them, maybe join a few mailing lists and committees, etc. Maybe some of these new editors will be inspired by gender justice projects. Anyway, the reason I pointed to the notably male biographies was to refute the OP's suggestion that we be vague about gender discrepancies on wikipedia... We certainly can't hide these extremely obvious facts, so let's improve the mailing list description--by linking to something fun like https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap ? -adam ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] what follows from most editors do not gender-identify
On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Adam Wight s...@ludd.net wrote: la...@fanhistory.com: Do you have any data to back up the theory that women will write women's content? I would hope not, actually! I would actually HOPE you did. The connection was made by you. Only 20% of biographies are about women. If we can increase women's participation, this gap in articles in articles about women will disappear. I want to know what this premise is, as it appears to be a fundamental assumption in how the gender gap is addressed. I don't understand why the thinking is this way and I'd love to see research done on this topic to prove if this actually holds true. But a grassroots approach will give more people the chance to express whatever it is that interests them, maybe join a few mailing lists and committees, etc. Maybe some of these new editors will be inspired by gender justice projects. But you have no proof that female participation will lead to an increase in articles about women? The whole supposition is based on hope then, not on actual data? The planning and research being actively done is not grounded in any research data on the topic? Anyway, the reason I pointed to the notably male biographies was to refute the OP's suggestion that we be vague about gender discrepancies on wikipedia... We certainly can't hide these extremely obvious facts, so let's improve the mailing list description--by linking to something fun like https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap ? The problem is you came up with a 20% number that has no meaning. Is there a gender gap? Do you want to contextualise this data against the actual backdrop of what is going on? How many articles would you expect about female heads of government in the United Kingdom? How does this compare to the 20% number? 20% would suggest that we're actually OVER-REPRESENTING women as I don't believe there have been 20% female prime ministers and queens when compared to men. I think something like 99% of articles about softball players are about women despite the fact that male softball players have a world championship, often meet WP:GNG and pass sport notability... and when playing up the men's game would actually work towards bringing back softball to the Olympics. The articles about the female presidents of the United States and female senators and female house of reps members in the United States, would you say 50% of these positions historically have been held by women? If that is the case, then we do have big gender gap if the number is actually 20% existing but I some how doubt it. Let's talk about female mathematicians. How many of these are articles about mathematicians are about women? What percentage of the notable and influential mathematicians would be women inside of the maths community and according to Wikipedia's guidelines would be women? So your number of 20% is a nice number, but ultimately meaningless because it doesn't explain much at all. Cursory data that doesn't provide actionable data, which the University of Minnesota research study pretty much was, is not helpful towards formulating solutions to the problem. Perhaps, the researchers at the University of Minnesota could revisit the study and do a better job breaking down these numbers and borrow more practices from both marketing and education where specific groups are looked at so more regionally focused solutions can be developed. (I'd guess the gender gap in the USA would be less pronounced than in say India or Cambodia or Spain or New Zealand.) We need data and research we can act on... We need something more than hope as a rationale that we can act on. I'd feel silly applying for a grant saying Please give us money to improve Wikipedia's gender gap in terms of participation because we hope that doing so will improve content about women as we hope women will edit content about women. I think, before a grant committee, I'd be laughed and my application set aside. -- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Holly Graf
On 6/18/2012 9:29 AM, Nathan wrote: Seems like another 1E candidate. The over-emphasis on the controversy at the end of her career can be addressed by wiping out most of the detail, or by removing the article entirely (since the notability argument is somewhat fragile, and all the references about the subject relate to her dismissal). If the material is WP:Undue it can be reduced. If there is evidence that this was a case of males freaking at female orders, and there's WP:RS evidence of that, include it. If she was in fact abusive, we should not be trying to cover that up. Meanwhile an NPOV question mark tag on the article would be appropriate. CM ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Holly Graf
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 8:50 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmoor...@verizon.netwrote: If the material is WP:Undue it can be reduced. If there is evidence that this was a case of males freaking at female orders, and there's WP:RS evidence of that, include it. If she was in fact abusive, we should not be trying to cover that up. Meanwhile an NPOV question mark tag on the article would be appropriate. CM There's no evidence of males freaking at female orders, but then there wouldn't be, because the review board and her superiors are primarily male (as were the majority of her colleagues and subordinates). So that might be part of it, but there's no real way to establish that or include it in the article. Given the sources and context, it did seem that the dismissal was getting undue weight, so I reduced the coverage and I think the article is in OK shape. ~Nathan ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] what follows from most editors do not gender-identify
la...@fanhistory.com: On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 9:30 AM, Adam Wight s...@ludd.net wrote: la...@fanhistory.com: Do you have any data to back up the theory that women will write women's content? I would hope not, actually! I would actually HOPE you did. The connection was made by you. Only 20% of biographies are about women. If we can increase women's participation, this gap in articles in articles about women will disappear. I want to know what this premise is, as it appears to be a fundamental assumption in how the gender gap is addressed. I don't understand why the thinking is this way and I'd love to see research done on this topic to prove if this actually holds true. The 20% was a relative measure, quoted from an even less scholarly source which is currently offline. An archive exists here: http://web.archive.org/web/20100310065157/http://onwikipedia.blogspot.com/2010/01/whos-on-wikipedia-part-2-gender-and.html That article claims that 29% of people in the Gale Biography Resource Center are female (N=330,000), so either wikipedia is underrepresenting by 10%, or Gale is overrepresenting women. You bring up an excellent point, that women aren't necessarily going to write about feminist topics, and some men are. Without a doubt, there are two distinct issues, the first is recruiting strong feminists and women in general, along with people who aren't interested in an encyclopedia strictly-defined, and people who feel queasy around markup languages. The second is to channel creative energy towards feminist topics. There's definitely a chicken-and-egg problem here, nobody can say whether it's more important to recruit, or to create an environment which encourages the type of work you'd like to see. The premise I hope people are acting on when they prioritize participation is the democratic principle, that individuals' interests can only be represented by the people themselves. It's to be expected that most grantmaking bodies are not forward-thinking enough to accept this. -Adam ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
