http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_Wikipedians
How did we go from a dozen to 1,700? Some other category got renamed
and redirected?
Or some bot added everyone who had one of the user boxes in that category??
Looked at a few and didn't see evidence someone manually added them all.
I added myself (I dream of horses) manually, if using HotCat can be seen as
manual.
But yeah, that is a bit suspicious. What happened?
From,
Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmoor...@verizon.netwrote:
LOL. Wow, explosion is right.
Yes, it looks like something magically added anyone who has those
infoboxes to the list.
Ha ha!
-Sarah
On 9/24/12 3:32 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_Wikipedians
How did we go from a dozen to 1,700? Some other
Those infoboxes? You mean, the kind that I have on my userpage? Or
userboxes?
From,
Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
LOL. Wow, explosion is right.
Yes, it looks like something magically added anyone who has those
infoboxes to the list.
It looks like User:Nikkimaria did it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AUBX%2Ffemalediff=513502186oldid=512261233
She added the category to the usercategory aspect of the template.
Woot!!
-Sarah
On 9/24/12 3:32 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:
On 9/24/12 3:35 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
Those infoboxes? You mean, the kind that I have on my userpage? Or
userboxes?
GAH. I meant userboxes.
DOH! :)
-Sarah
From,
Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Sarah Stierch
sarah.stie...@gmail.com mailto:sarah.stie...@gmail.com wrote:
So. The implications of this. Good, bad, or does it really achieve anything?
From,
Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
On 9/24/12 3:35 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
Those infoboxes? You mean, the kind that I have on my userpage? Or
userboxes?
On 9/24/12 3:37 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
So. The implications of this. Good, bad, or does it really achieve
anything?
From,
Emily
I'm not sure if there really is any good or bad implication, so to say.
All it shows is that, in theory, there are approximately 1700 people in
English Wikipedia
Well, a few of my previous accounts may in there, but I put {{Abadoned
account}} on all of them, so...
From,
Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
On 9/24/12 3:37 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
So. The implications of this. Good, bad, or does it really
To me it seems beneficial to have a broadly accessible opportunity to formulate
and answer questions about self-identified women on Wikipedia. The benefit is
in empowering researchers and our community to pursue interesting questions --
but by definition, we don't know what the questions are
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonro...@gmail.com wrote:
So. The implications of this. Good, bad, or does it really achieve anything?
For Australia, it means we can do time series analysis of the gender
gap based on the October 2010 dataset that Laura Hale published and
So, what are the questions?
From,
Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Pete Forsyth petefors...@gmail.com wrote:
To me it seems beneficial to have a broadly accessible opportunity to
formulate and answer questions about self-identified women on Wikipedia.
The benefit is in empowering
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonro...@gmail.com wrote:
So. The implications of this. Good, bad, or does it really achieve anything?
For Australia, it means we can do time series analysis of the
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonro...@gmail.com wrote:
So, what are the questions?
Why do women start? Why do women quit? Is it different from reasons men quit?
Is there a sector where outreach has a higher conversion rate into
Wikipedian Women?
Is there an age bracket
Well, I am a GED graduate on disability, if that helps.
From,
Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:01 PM, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonro...@gmail.com
wrote:
So, what are the questions?
Why do women start? Why do women quit?
Yeah, I agree with John, those sorts of question becomes easier to answer when
there's more immediate information available (even if the information isn't
perfect or complete).
In addition, I can imagine that exploring the category and looking at user
pages might inspire the formulation of
One little note - I did utilize these userboxes when inviting female
editors (or presumed female) to participate in my Women and Wikimedia
survey last year.
-Sarah
On 9/24/12 4:09 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Yeah, I agree with John, those sorts of question becomes easier to
answer when there's
Yeah, I remember that.
From,
Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stie...@gmail.comwrote:
One little note - I did utilize these userboxes when inviting female
editors (or presumed female) to participate in my Women and Wikimedia
survey last year.
-Sarah
On
There is another way to look at the number of females who have identified
themselves as female. I don't know if you remember when you first signed up,
you probably ended up at Special:Preferences where you entered an email
address. On that same page there is a field where people can opt to
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Thehelpfulone
thehelpfulonew...@gmail.com wrote:
There is another way to look at the number of females who have identified
themselves as female. I don't know if you remember when you first signed up,
you probably ended up at Special:Preferences where you entered
On 25 Sep 2012, John Vandenberg jay...@gmail.com wrote:
I dont recall it being discussed recently. I would like to install
that userscript, and think a dump of that data would be very helpful.
--
John Vandenberg
I believe the line you need to add to your common.js or monobook.js or
21 matches
Mail list logo
