Sarah, welcome to the discussion and thank you for the work that you are already doing.
I'm very interested in hearing more about your organizations and your ideas. I agree that we need to think big! The situation is ripe to form an international organization that brings together existing organizations and active Wikimedia editors in a coalition that coordinates a big campaign. The user group is an easy first step to gain affiliation with the WMF because it doesn't require formal legal registration. Once we get the ball rolling, a WMF affiliated thematic organization might better serve the needs the group. But for the initial organizing stage, the user group should work fine. Regards, Sydney Poore Sent from my iPhone On Oct 21, 2013, at 2:41, Sarah Granger <sa...@sarahgranger.com> wrote: > I've been largely lurking on this list due to lack of time to contribute to > the discussion and the fact I'm not really a very experienced Wikipedia > contributor, but the reason I joined this list is because I very much want to > help solve the Wikipedia gender gap problem. I think it's incredibly > important and that most people working in digital media have no clue how > significant this is. The focus of my work is how digital media affects our > lives and our world, and with more people online every day and Wikipedia as > the world's online encyclopedia, I think the gender imbalance can only affect > digital culture long-term in a negative way. > > What I envision is a coalition of like-minded organizations working together > on a campaign to build awareness, educate people on the roots of the problem, > recruit & train new contributors. I work with a lot of digital media > campaigners for women's organizations, with women in tech organizations, and > with organizations supporting women in media - and digital media. I also have > connections at more traditional feminist organizations. I strongly believe > these organizations will help if they can first become aware themselves. Most > are just not thinking about how digital media and wikipedia affects gender > bias online and in general. But there are literally a few hundred online > activists / digital strategists at various organizations who I know would > care about this if they are just approached the right way to help. > > So I encourage everyone here to think big and outside the box. I founded the > Center for Technology, Media & Society with the purpose of taking on issues > that have slipped under the radar of other organizations because they're > interdisciplinary. This is one of the core areas I want to work on. We don't > have c3 status yet, we haven't fundraised. I had to take a break to write a > book and just finished the writing part of the process, but I had a pilot > project set up with a list of worthy women who should have sites but don't, > and I signed up some women willing to try contributing, but we got stuck at > the training part because of time and general learning curve. Also, I didn't > want to reinvent the wheel on anything the Wikimedia Foundation was doing. > > I really want to be a part of this conversation long-term because I think if > we do this right, we could make a huge difference. I have a background in > national digital campaigns, so my ideas come from that world. A few ideas I > had: launching an international wikipedia training week for women &/or having > a wikipedia editing week, a regular monthly wikiwomen day where we blast > social networks & engage women to add & edit pages, putting together some > clever online memes to build awareness, Tweetups, FB buttons, a blog > carnival, building a campaign specific website to explain the problem, > solutions, recruit participants, etc... especially reaching out to young > women in tech. I spoke at a conference of young women in computing in the > midwest yesterday and that kind of audience I think would be perfect for > recruiting new Wikipedia women contributors. > > The one other reason I've been treading cautiously is because I believe that > anything done to improve Wikipedia's content should ideally be done with some > buy-in from the community, rather than criticizing it. I could see some > women's organizations getting really angry once they understand the problem, > and blaming men for sexism, when the problem, as all of us on this list know, > is much more complex and not an outright issue like that. I want to make sure > they are invited in as partners and that they are being constructive and > proactive. There are always ways to use humor to bridge the gap when working > on messaging around the issue, but we really need everyone on board. > > I didn't mean to write this much... it's late where I am. I hope this > provides some helpful additional thoughts and ideas. I really want to help > with this. I think ideally it would be run from within the Wikimedia > organization, partnering with all the others I mentioned, so I think the user > group sounds like a good plan if that's the right operational entity (not > being fully versed in the Wikimedia org structure, I'm deferring to others > here), but if that can't be done, for whatever reason, I'd be happy to find > the an organization that would be a good fit for that role, or we could take > it on in our organization if we have enough support from others (since we're > scrappy with zero resources at the moment). > > Please keep me in the loop and let me know how I can help best, but count me > in for whatever group, organization or coalition. > > - Sarah Granger > > > On Oct 20, 2013, at 11:48 PM, Cobi <c...@aippnet.org> wrote: > >> Hey, >> this is the first time I've actually added anything to discussion on this >> list :) >> >> I agree that trying to address the issue by hiring one or two activists >> taking on responsiblity for talking about it/acting on it wouldn't address >> what I consider to be the big problem of "environmental challenges" or >> systemic bias, as having people focused specifically on the issue can mean >> that people who don't care or inadvertently contribute to the problem can >> continue to dismiss it as a niche issue. In my experience I find it more >> effective to say, for example, that I think open access is really important >> and I will contribute to open access projects, but if people behave in ways >> that contribute to systemic bias, I will not contribute further as I prefer >> to focus my energies elsewhere. >> >> As research about women in engineering shows, benefits-focused recruitment >> drives won't work if women (or other underrepresented peoples in Wikipedia) >> get lost along a leaky pipeline, when after acquiring the technical skills >> to contribute, they come to feel that their contributions aren't valued and >> they are better off focusing energies elsewhere. I'm working in >> international development - part of that often involves disaggregating data >> to see which projects are involving people of diverse genders and ages and >> ethnicities for example, and which aren't, and refocusing funding to value >> groups that demonstrate the ability to be inclusive, or that specifically >> engage people who are often left out in genuine decision-making and >> empowerment - rather than pushing them to work for little return. Perhaps >> one strategy is to look at the composition of existing WMF-affiliated user >> groups, to see what gaps exist in what WMF is endorsing (and giving grants >> for. I think it would useful to have an activist involved in every single >> user group, contributing there and raising awareness of issues among other >> editors, but that's a burden on each of those activists to lead change in >> those groups. I wouldn't be comfortable joining a group just focused on this >> issue, for fear of harassment or people being more subtly difficult, knowing >> I'm focusing energies in this area that they might be opposed to - I'd be >> more comfortable being part of a project in which women editors contribute >> to other projects and that WMF works to ensure their contributions are >> valued and supported, recognizing that systemic bias means value and support >> is less likely to happen naturally within the system. >> >> Perhaps they're not mutually exclusive though. I'm sharing this hoping it >> helps to explain why some people, who are activists in this area, aren't >> necessarily active in the way proposed right now :) >> >> Cheers, Cobi >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alixos >> >> >> On Oct 18, 2556 BE, at 6:29 AM, Sydney Poore wrote: >> >>> Hi , >>> >>> Today I began the discussion about establishing a Wikimedia Foundation >>> affiliated user group around the topic of addressing the gender gap in >>> Wikimedia Foundation projects. I see this as being an international >>> organization where people from all over the world can work together on this >>> common cause. >>> >>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gender_gap_strategy_2013#Establishing_a_WMF-affiliated_user_group >>> >>> The threshold for being recognized is pretty low., only 3 people, but I >>> would not want to go for affiliation with less than 10 interested people. >>> And I hope we can attract many many more. >>> >>> I plan to discuss this in Berlin at the Diversity Conference but want to >>> make it clear that the organization is open to every one interested in >>> actively working on the topic. So please spread the word. >>> >>> I put a sign up space in the thread so we can capture the initial interest >>> that came out of this thread. >>> >>> One of the key discussion will be the name of the group. So everyone put >>> their thinking caps on so we can make this decision within the next month >>> of so. >>> >>> Sydney Poore >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:29 PM, Nathan <nawr...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On Wed, Oct 16, 2013 at 4:11 PM, Sydney <sydney.po...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> > Yes, with the narrowing focus last year the community will need to take >>>> > the >>>> > lead. But from the meeting earlier this year it is clear that there >>>> > definitely is talented people on staff at WMF who are more than willing >>>> > to >>>> > assist as their time permits. >>>> >>>> >>>> That's unfortunate. I understood the narrowing focus to mean not >>>> placing WMF offices and contractors around the world, or doing sort of >>>> boots on the ground face to face outreach. Since usability initiatives >>>> and some other programs are still ongoing, it seems like the gender >>>> gap should've stayed on the table for direct involvement even if not >>>> through the vehicle of the fellowship program. Too bad. >>>> >>>> That said, there are chapters who receive hundreds of thousands of >>>> dollars in funding from the FDC despite having objectively achieved >>>> very little to date; certainly that means there is an opportunity >>>> there for people with an interest in dedicating themselves full time >>>> to this work to be compensated fairly through a funded WMF affiliate. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
