Keep in mind that the majority of Wikimedians (i.e., people making edits on
the 900+ sites hosted by the WMF) do so without registering an account.
The existence of these projects was entirely dependent on that fact in the
early days (and in younger and smaller projects, still is). I recall
seeing data indicating that over 90% of Wikimedians made their first edits
without creating an account, and I'll wager the same is true for the
majority of people on this list, at least anyone who joined before about
2009. However, as time has progressed, it's become increasingly difficult
to get edits accepted from unregistered editors: some projects have
flagged revisions for every single edit, for example, which means that an
edit by an IP isn't even visible until it's been "approved" - which can
sometimes take weeks; others have groups of 'recent changes patrollers'
that revert almost all edits by unregistered users ("anti-vandalism
patrol") whether or not the content is reasonable or even good. A while
back, I decided to do some minor copy edits without logging in, and was
within a whisker of getting blocked for fixing typos - 70% of my edits were
reverted, even though 100% of them were correct.
The sad point is that Wikipedia *has* changed. But it's not changed in the
direction that encourages *any* new users to participate - regardless of
gender. Nobody knew whether my edits were from a woman or a man; they were
just reverted. With templates, but not a single actual attempt at human
contact. Today, I wouldn't even get the templates, I bet; there's probably
an edit filter somewhere that will prevent me from making the edit in the
first place. Even if it's right.
Risker/Anne
On 30 December 2014 at 14:55, Marie Earley <eir...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't know how it goes in other parts of the world but here in the UK if
> you apply for a job, take a one day course in a particular subject, or do
> just about anything, there is always an equal opportunities monitoring form
> like this one:
> http://www.city.ac.uk/about/working-at-city/hr-policies-and-health-and-safety/hr-policies/equal-opps-form
> to fill in.
>
> I found it a bit shocking when I registered for Facebook, Wikipedia and
> other US-based websites that they had no apparent interest in the
> demographic make up of those opening accounts. If Wikipedia had an equal
> opps form at the point of registering a lot of this talk of doing surveys
> and trying to figure this stuff out retrospectively could be avoided.
>
> It's just not the kind of conversation that takes place in the UK because
> the first thing that happens is the equal opps forms are collected into a
> pile, there is an afternoon set aside for data entry, and there are your
> stats. I find talk of surveys a bit frustrating.
>
> Marie
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:56:44 -0500
> From: nawr...@gmail.com
> To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikimedia Conference (was - Diversity training
> for functionaries)
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingw...@gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
> Hi Anne, Kerry and Christina - and everyone else,
>
> So the Wikimedia Conference programme committee appears keen to do
> something useful in terms of creating space for gender - gap work. So I
> wondered if you had any further thoughts about what *might* work at the
> Wikimedia Conference.
>
> As Anne points out it is an audience of people from Wikimedia movement
> organisations - board members, executive directors (where they exist), and
> a smaller number of other staff. Compared to other Wikimedia events there
> is probably a greater language and geographical diversity. There is also a
> reasonable degree of awareness of the issue - better than one would find if
> you put english Wikipedia administrators in a room.
>
> The main focus for the conference is going to be on helping Wikimedia
> organisations grow, learn and improve - we are looking to give people
> practical outcomes, and are avoiding theoretical discussion as far as
> possible.
>
> Thoughts on what we can put in the programme on this issue are very
> welcome :) (I'll pass everything on to the programme committee, though I
> suspect I'm not the only member of it subscribed to this list).
>
> Thanks and happy new year!
>
> Chris
>
>
> The simplest thing to do is to describe the gender gap related efforts
> that other organizations have sponsored, urge the various movement entities
> to consider their own initiatives and - especially - push them to innovate.
> Few if any organized efforts have resulted in even small lasting change, so
> brainstorming ways in which chapters etc. can put their resources - real
> life organization and money - to use will be of greatest benefit. This is
> an area where a chapter or affiliate has the opportunity to be a global
> leader and to have a high profile impact, and the more they understand that
> the more likely they are to participate.
>
>
> _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences,
> including unsubscribing, please visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
> visit:
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
