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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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].
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.
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
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
12 matches
Mail list logo
