Checking the votes at
https://vote.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000title=Special%3ASecurePoll%2Flist%2F392dir=prev
against the English Wikipedia database, shows an interesting
statistic. Of the 590 votes cast only *one* voter has an account
marked with their gender as female.
Obviously many
What is your proposed solution?
On Dec 9, 2014 8:14 AM, Fæ fae...@gmail.com wrote:
Checking the votes at
https://vote.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000title=Special%3ASecurePoll%2Flist%2F392dir=prev
against the English Wikipedia database, shows an interesting
statistic. Of the 590
On 09/12/2014 13:14, Fæ wrote:
Checking the votes at
https://vote.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000title=Special%3ASecurePoll%2Flist%2F392dir=prev
against the English Wikipedia database, shows an interesting
statistic. Of the 590 votes cast only *one* voter has an account
marked with their
What proportion of the rest had accounts explicitly marked as male? My
first thought is that most people of all genders probably get to that
section of Preferences, go Why would mediawiki want to know my gender in
the first place? This is dumb and skip it. Or they never fiddle with their
The statistic comes from querying the English Wikipedia database. This
includes a table of user preferences which itself is where the on-wiki
preferences stores information like preferred gender.
Here's the SQL for anyone interested (it includes other redundant
stuff, I was re-using something I
On 09/12/2014 13:45, Fæ wrote:
The statistic comes from querying the English Wikipedia database. This
includes a table of user preferences which itself is where the on-wiki
preferences stores information like preferred gender.
Here's the SQL for anyone interested (it includes other redundant
Going to be honest here, I think the more interesting statistic is that
there are only 590 voters in an active user base of about 30,000. I think
this may reflect a change in the degree of importance the community places
on the Arbitration Committee.
On the female editors participating front,
OOPS,
Absolutely correct, I had a programme error. Re-running this gives a
more credible set of numbers:
Total voted: 590
Total identified with gender: 255
Male 224
Female 31
So open males = 38%, open females = 5%. Which indicates that a good
*guesstimate* of the number of women voting was
On 12/9/2014 9:08 AM, Risker wrote:
Going to be honest here, I think the more interesting statistic is
that there are only 590 voters in an active user base of about
30,000. I think this may reflect a change in the degree of importance
the community places on the Arbitration Committee.
They
Per Fae's message:
OOPS,
Absolutely correct, I had a programme error. Re-running this gives a
more credible set of numbers:
Total voted: 590
Total identified with gender: 255
Male 224
Female 31
So open males = 38%, open females = 5%. Which indicates that a good
*guesstimate* of the number of
There have never been anywhere near that many people voting for Arbcom
elections; in fact, that's more people than voted in the last Board of
Trustees elections for the elected seats, and hugely more than get a vote
for the chapter/affiliate-selected Board seats.
The fact of the matter is that
There have never been anywhere near that many people voting for Arbcom
elections; in fact, that's more people than voted in the last Board of
Trustees elections for the elected seats, and hugely more than get a vote
for the chapter/affiliate-selected Board seats.
I wonder if the apparent
12 matches
Mail list logo
