Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

Kevin, 2014 was the nadir for some raw editing numbers on English Wikipedia, on at least one count numbers have been rising since then . The problem in estimating the electorate is that our best metrics are unrelated

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

WSC - Though true that 2014 appears to have been the nadir for many editing metrics, even if you set the bar really high, I'd be impressed if you could find any relevant metric that was only 60% of what it was the year before. A lot more went in to dismal arbcom turnout than simply the fact that

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

>We have to do something. Suggestion: women coming before the committee could >require that certain >committee members not participate. How about anyone? (As I think your next comment seems to realize) >We could extend that to any harassment case. Or we could set up a jury system, >instead of

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

On 22 October 2015 at 16:27, Sarah (SV) wrote: > Daniel, I happen to think that any Arb who is asked to excuse themselves > from a case should do so, within reason. > I tend to agree with you on this, Sarah. > > But in particular I think women who see certain Arbs as

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

Daniel, I happen to think that any Arb who is asked to excuse themselves from a case should do so, within reason. But in particular I think women who see certain Arbs as sexist should be able to require recusal. Otherwise the case is hobbled before it begins. Ditto for anyone with concerns about

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

Some ideas: *People are elected to the committee for two years, and not allowed to stand again for another five. No more tranches. *Arbs are not given access to CU or oversight. This will weed out people who nominate themselves to gain access to the tools. It will decrease the amount of work the

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

On 22 October 2015 at 17:31, Sarah (SV) wrote: > Some ideas: > > *People are elected to the committee for two years, and not allowed to > stand again for another five. No more tranches. > I'd suggest ensuring that there is not 100% change every year (so keeping some form

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

I haven't followed ARBCOM closely enough this year to be quite as scathing as Risker, but the what little I have seen is very disappointing. I haven't been an arb, but I have done jury service, and I'm a fan of the system. But it relies on conscription to draft people in for a task that they are

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

On 22 October 2015 at 18:09, WereSpielChequers wrote: > > > Another option is to invest in training arbs and functionaries. Both on > technical training - if Sarah and Kevin are right re the Lightbreather case > then it may just be that they didn't know how to get

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

Not to keep harping on how important it is to vote for arbcom, but I'm still just flummoxed by the fact that arbcom is elected by about half a percent of very active editors, and a smaller portion still of editors who meet the requirements and have edited in say, the last year. Speaking as

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

Ah yes, let's have a jury system. Except that nobody can be compelled to serve (what would we do? desysop someone? block them from adding content?), and the [type of] people most likely to volunteer are...well, arbcom. Or the arbcom candidates whom the community had already rejected. Please no

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

Daniel: your suggestion doesn't reflect the fact that 2014's election had roughly 60% the voters of the year before. We definitely didn't have anywhere near that much of a drop in editing metrics. Best, Kevin Gorman On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Daniel and Elizabeth Case

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

I'm going to bring this thread back to its original topic. I did some talking and some digging tonight, and it seems to be time to pull up a few relevant links. It's pretty obvious that Community Advocacy is working on harassment issues, including gender-based harassment; I understand a blog

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

If the editing metrics are still up, could this a reflect a shift in the type of user to coordinated offsite editing. Judging by the huge amount of interest in a certain obscure IdeaLab proposal, we could be looking at a new editing paradigm. On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 9:21 PM, Kevin Gorman

Re: [Gendergap] Atlantic article..."How Wikipedia is Hostile toWomen"

>(Minor quibbles: Eric is not an admin, and the New York Times piece was not >written by a NYT reporter. Corrections possible?) I would also that the “lists” referred to were in fact the category pages, a distinction that I allow may be lost outside of the project but means something to us