The post is currently on the Slashdot front page. There are over 300
comments to date, including a handful from current and former female
Wikipedians (as well as much dross).
http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/08/28/207240/why-women-have-no-time-for-wikipedia
If you're prepared to wade through
The math behind that little statistic was so terrible I had to write a
blog post about it.
http://blog.mvolz.com/2014/08/what-percentage-of-wikipedia-editors-are-mums/
First off, in their blog post, Andreas Collida multiply the
percentage of contributor respondents who were women (12.64%) by
Hi Marielle,
Thanks for your comments, and for pointing out that one of the more
detailed reports from the UNU survey, i.e.
https://web.archive.org/web/20130129042156/http://www.wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipedia_Age_Gender_30March%202010-FINAL-3.pdf
did break down the number of contributors
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 12:22 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen...@gmail.com wrote:
I will have to look into Hill Shaw, but would note that the Wikimedia
Foundation itself reported the figures from the UNU survey as they stood
(see e.g. p. 8 of the February 2011 Strategic Plan: According to the
Thanks Phoebe. What actually happened to the April 2012 survey? I mentioned
that the figures were never released – all I could find was some Wikimania
2013 slides John Vandenberg posted on Facebook, which did not include
gender stats, and to my knowledge there was neither a report nor a dump
(see
Hi Marielle,
On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 9:18 PM, Marielle Volz marielle.v...@gmail.com
wrote:
Thanks for the response Andreas. I've updated with the 8.5% source.
I have updated my text in line with your comments, and added an author's
note acknowledging your input.
Best regards,
Andreas
There is a new blog post up on Wikipedia-criticism site Wikipediocracy that
should be of interest to this list.
Andreas Kolbe with Nathalie Collida, Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia:
Thoughts on the Online Encyclopedia's Gender Imbalance.
