Hi Claudia. There are good numbers for LGBT in real world populations, and the people doing the studies are all to aware of the problems with their numbers - there are journals dedicated to research in this discipline. i havent seen similar quality academic studies about LGBT within the wikimedia community - these studies tend to be very simplistic due to lack if understanding or inadequate funding, and/or riddled with bias without explanation. On Jul 6, 2012 1:11 PM, <koltzenb...@w4w.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote > > I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap. > > my impression is that there certainly are gender gaps in LGBTIQA* > communities - if ever non-heterosexual > people are happy to be lumped together just because of not identifying > non-heterosexual, that is ... - > > irrespective of whether we define "gender" in two (female / male) or in > many (like in LGBTIQA*, with * > including heterosexuals of whatever gender) > > and also, yes, I also think that there is a widespread gender gap between > non-heterosexuals and > heterosexuals, "widespread" meaning: in many cultures (and that bisexuals > are the freest and hence could > act as the bridge-builders for such a gender gap in a very nice way, it > seems to me) > > > The point of the > [LGBT] > > list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation > > like gendergap is. > > why is this not intended, Tom? > see also the following: > > On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:35:21 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote > > I agree, mostly, but. . my understanding is that the surveys (ignoring > the > > faults in them) indicate LGBT may actually be over-represented in > wikimedia > > when compared to the distribution expected by real-world population > > studies; in both men and women. Im not saying this is bad, but that it > > does not appear that there is a LGBT systemic gap that needs a strategic > > approach to solving. > > maybe there is another methodological issue here? > why would you want to ignore the faults in wikimedia surveys but not in > outcomes of any study that > purports to "verify" (or whatever) "the distribution expected by > real-world population studies"? > > how can anyone who is doing "real-world population studies" expect to find > out anything reliable about the > size of a community who members are still facing systematic social and > political attempts at silencing (about > their way of life) by their adversaries of whatever inclination? > > maybe, hence, it would be more realistic to compare non-real-world results > to the wikimedia results? > hypothesis: "over-represented" would start with 51% LGBTIQA* but not below > :-) > > anyway, I am not sure I agree with Tom's list of differences between the > [gendergap] and [LGBT] lists and > will come back to this later since I think it is more important to see > what these two lists have in common :-) > so I like John's argument that we might learn from each other! > > cheers > Claudia > > On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote > > On Monday, 2 July 2012 at 06:24, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: > > > Hi Tom, hi @all > > > > > > > Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created > > > > > > since we are addressing not only one gender gap but, seemingly quite a > few, including those that come > alonf > > > the lines of what has come to be called sexual orientarion, I have a > question about the creation process > of > > > the new list. I recently heard elsewhere that > > > > > > it was difficult to bring WF to "allow" the list to be created in the > frame of lists.wikimedia.org > (http://lists.wikimedia.org)? > > > how come? > > > > You can see the discussion that led to the creation of the mailing list > here: > > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37888 > > > > I disagreed rather strongly with the suggestion made that two of the > > proposed list administrators (Varnent and Fae) would have a "POV"*, but > > agreed to be a list admin instead. > > > > Eventually, there was not really any "difficulty", just confusion and > > miscommunication. All's well that ends well. > > > > I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap. The point of the > > list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation > > like gendergap is. It's based on two things: dealing with problematic > > editor interaction issues if and when they occur and trying to increase > > outreach to LGBT communities and organisations – sort of like GLAM: > > there are historical and cultural organisations Wikimedians can work with > > to counter systemic bias etc. (As with women's history, LGBT history is > > often written out of the literature, and thus out of Wikipedia.) > > > > There's obviously some overlap given that gender, gender identity and > > sexual orientation are all bound together, but I wouldn't otherwise want > > to draw comparisons with what gendergap is doing and what the LGBT list > is > > doing. > > > > * To quote Lady Gaga: if I have a POV or a COI, I was born that way. > > > > -- > > Tom Morris > > <http://tommorris.org/> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gendergap mailing list > > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > thanks & cheers, > Claudia > koltzenb...@w4w.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
