Re: [Gendergap] [PRESS] Women Novelists Wikipedia: Female Authors Absent From Site's 'American Novelists' Page?
Program Evaluation Community Coordinator >> Donate today and keep it free! >> >> Visit me on Wikipedia! >> >> >> >> >> ___ >> 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 >> > > > > -- > Leslie Carr > Wikimedia Foundation > AS 14907, 43821 > http://as14907.peeringdb.com/ > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Liz Henry on women novelists, English Wikipedia, and labelling
The recent discussion on this (which never really came to a clear consensus): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)/Archive_101#Actresses_categorization - Andrew On 27 April 2013 01:49, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > If people are concerned about sexism in Wikipedia categories they should be > drawing attention to edits like this: > https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Gillies&curid=19682193&diff=536982107&oldid=536980531 > > While the rest of the world is moving away from gender-specific job names > (like policeman and actress), Wikipedia is moving in the opposite direction. > That seems like a much worse problem than categorizing women as women. > > Ryan Kaldari > > > On 4/25/13 11:34 PM, Shlomi Fish wrote: >> >> Hi all, >> >> On Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:56:39 -0400 >> Sumana Harihareswara wrote: >> >>> Wikimedia community member Liz Henry blogs here: >>> http://bookmaniac.org/journalists-dont-understand-wikipedia-sometimes/ >>> and does a little bit of digging into edit histories. >>> >>> "Just from these three samples, it does not seem that there is any >>> particular movement among a group of Wikipedia editors to remove women >>> from the “novelists” category and put them in a special women category >>> instead. I would say that the general leaning, rather, is to stop people >>> who would like to label women writers as women writers *in addition* to >>> labeling them as writers, claiming there is no need for Category: >>> American women writers at all and that it is evidence of bias to >>> identify them by gender. ... The sexist thing we >>> should be up in arms about isn’t labelling women as women! It’s the >>> efforts to delete entire categories (like Haitian women writers, for >>> example) because someone has decided that that meta-information is >>> unnecessary “ghettoization”..." >> >> Seems like good write-up and I tend to agree. It's too bad there was so >> much >> misunderstanding in the media about it. >> >> Regards, >> >> Shlomi Fish >> > > > ___ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Sex Ratios in Wikidata Part III
Hi all, I ran a few quick updates on Max's numbers today. As of 9/6/14: * WIkidata has ~2080k items marked as people * Of these, ~1893k have a "gender" property (91%) (Magnus's games are doing an amazing job at filling out these numbers, by the way - http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=213 ) Very quick and dirty statistics follow - note that since we have 9% undefined, the stats may change a bit as time goes on :-) * The gender breakdown across all these people is approximately 1603k male, 290k female - 84.7% male and 15.3% female. * enwiki is 15.5% female; arwiki 14.2%; dewiki 14.9% female; frwiki 15.2%; eswiki 15.9%; jawiki 18.2%; hiwiki 18.7%; zhwiki 20.1% * It's interesting to note that these numbers mostly seem a point or two better than the numbers Max got a month ago, which probably represents better data-logging rather than change in the underlying content * There are still very few items with a gender property other than "male" or "female" - perhaps 100-200 overall - but I suspect this number will significantly increase as we deal with the remaining items. Andrew. On 22 May 2014 18:16, Maximilian Klein wrote: > Hi Everyone, > > I just conducted some new research I though you might be intrigued by. > > It compares the "sex or gender" labels in use by Wikidata today - 13 in > total. > The percentage of articles about "female"s by language. > > The best are Serbian Wikipedia, or Urdu Wikipedia, depending on the size you > count. > > The Wiki's that have become most sexist in 2014 - English Wikpedia. > And the Data Richness per sex value. - 6.2 Wikidata Statement per male, 6.0 > per female. > > > See the full blog here, and please ask me questions and suggestions - > > http://notconfusing.com/sex-ratios-in-wikidata-part-iii/ > > Max Klein > ‽ http://notconfusing.com/ > > _______ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Sex Ratios in Wikidata Part III
On 9 June 2014 20:21, Nathan wrote: >> * WIkidata has ~2080k items marked as people >> * Of these, ~1893k have a "gender" property (91%) > Can you define "item" in this context? "Item" here is a single Wikidata entry: http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q320 which may correspond to one Wikipedia article, one hundred Wikipedia articles, etc - but all on the same topic. (Potentially it may correspond to *no* Wikipedia articles - it's not strictly required, and in any case the source article may be deleted - but there's unlikely to be a statistically large number of these just now) > Do we have any comparable data points by which to evaluate our progress? > Perhaps a similar breakdown of other reference works, or if there is some > sort of summary data available about biographies written (using LOC data?), > etc. The new Oxford Dictionary of National Biography was about 10% female when published in 2004, though this was skewed by a limitation to include all entries from the original, including a lot of - to modern eyes - very non-notable men. http://oed.hertford.ox.ac.uk/main/images/stories/articles/baigent2005.pdf (It's since crept up to ~11%) Max has done some numbers based on gender assigned in VIAF entries, I think, but I can't immediately find it. Ben Schmidt did something similar based on first names of authors: http://sappingattention.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/women-in-libraries.html -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Sex Ratios in Wikidata Part III
On 9 June 2014 23:34, Lennart Guldbrandsson wrote: > Some language versions of Wikipedia do have gender categorization, such as > Swedish and German Wikipedia. (The English categories exist but are not used > very much.) Here's a link to the Swedish ones: > > https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:M%C3%A4n (men) > presently 132 211 articles > > https://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kategori:Kvinnor (women) > presently 32 693 articles > > This gives a rough proportion of 1 female for every 4 male. article subject. > If my memory serves me, the German Wikipedia numbers are a bit higher > (perhaps 1 in 6). > > The categorization was on Swedish Wikipedia a conscious decision to try and > find out where we stood. Thanks - I knew about the German categories but not the Swedish ones. Interestingly, Wikidata reports: 32661 female on svwiki: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/autolist.html?q=claim%5B31%3A5%5D%20and%20claim%5B21%3A6581072%5D%20and%20link%5Bsvwiki%5D 130801 male on svwiki: http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/autolist.html?q=claim%5B31%3A5%5D%20and%20claim%5B21%3A6581097%5D%20and%20link%5Bsvwiki%5D Wikidata gives 20% female, the Wikipedia categories give 21%, but they're in reasonably good alignment - almost perfectly matching for women, and about 1500 men not in Wikidata. I'll have a look at getting these mapped across tonight :-) -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Lila Tretikov named to Forbes 100 most powerful women list
Stub tags are notoriously bad for this (I've just rerated half a dozen of these; Toby, are you happy for me to update the list?) On the other hand, we can take away a somewhat positive message from this as well: Two articles are FA and 6 are GA/equivalent. Across enwiki as a whole, approximately 0.6% of articles are FA or GA class. So this subset of articles is perhaps ten times better than the average... Andrew. On 16 June 2014 15:06, Risker wrote: > While I will agree that many of those articles could use significant > improvement, I wouldn't take the assessments all that seriously; a lot of > those articles have not been assessed in many years, despite intervening > improvements. > > Risker > > > On 16 June 2014 08:58, Toby Hudson wrote: >> >> I've just wikified this in my userspace if anyone wants to quickly check >> out our articles on these women. The good news is that we have an article >> for each of them. The bad news is that article quality is pretty grim if >> these are truly the 100 most powerful women. >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:99of9/100powerwomen >> >> Toby/99of9 >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Risker wrote: >>> >>> This is a pretty impressive showing for someone just 4 weeks into the >>> job: being named to the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women: >>> http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/ >>> >>> >>> Note that increasing diversity is, according to the brief article, a top >>> priority. >>> >>> Risker/Anne >>> >>> ___ >>> 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 > -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Lila Tretikov named to Forbes 100 most powerful women list
Done! All the stubs, at least. A couple of thoughts: a) As expected, most of the stubs weren't :-). BLPs are not my forte, but I'd say there's nine at most, and two or three of those are marginal to be uprated. [This is a pretty systemic problem with our talkpage ratings and stub tags: as Risker says, they get very stale. The sheer labour that would be required to keep them up-to-date on a systematic basis is daunting...] b) Lots of mid-range start/C mediocrity as is so often the case with Wikipedia, lots of it with a reasonable amount of content but needing some hacking around to get into shape c) If anyone is looking for a weekend project and is comfortable with political BLPs, I'd say Helen Clark is able to be pushed to GA with a bit of polishing and tidying, and Michelle Bachelet likewise. 10% of the list properly-reviewed would be nothing to sniff at. (Bachelet has an odd gap in that the article doesn't seem to have anything from her current presidency, but otherwise it's quite well-structured and not overly recentist, which is unusual for a politician's biography!). Andrew. On 17 June 2014 02:01, Toby Hudson wrote: > Hi Andrew, > Absolutely! Please do. > Yes, it was nice to see some FA and GAs in the mix. Maybe we should compare > a list of 100 most powerful men? > Toby > > > On Tue, Jun 17, 2014 at 6:02 AM, Andrew Gray > wrote: >> >> Stub tags are notoriously bad for this (I've just rerated half a dozen >> of these; Toby, are you happy for me to update the list?) >> >> On the other hand, we can take away a somewhat positive message from >> this as well: >> >> Two articles are FA and 6 are GA/equivalent. Across enwiki as a whole, >> approximately 0.6% of articles are FA or GA class. So this subset of >> articles is perhaps ten times better than the average... >> >> Andrew. >> >> On 16 June 2014 15:06, Risker wrote: >> > While I will agree that many of those articles could use significant >> > improvement, I wouldn't take the assessments all that seriously; a lot >> > of >> > those articles have not been assessed in many years, despite intervening >> > improvements. >> > >> > Risker >> > >> > >> > On 16 June 2014 08:58, Toby Hudson wrote: >> >> >> >> I've just wikified this in my userspace if anyone wants to quickly >> >> check >> >> out our articles on these women. The good news is that we have an >> >> article >> >> for each of them. The bad news is that article quality is pretty grim >> >> if >> >> these are truly the 100 most powerful women. >> >> >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:99of9/100powerwomen >> >> >> >> Toby/99of9 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 7:50 AM, Risker wrote: >> >>> >> >>> This is a pretty impressive showing for someone just 4 weeks into the >> >>> job: being named to the Forbes list of the 100 most powerful women: >> >>> http://www.forbes.com/profile/lila-tretikov/ >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> Note that increasing diversity is, according to the brief article, a >> >>> top >> >>> priority. >> >>> >> >>> Risker/Anne >> >>> >> >>> ___ >> >>> 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 >> > >> >> >> >> -- >> - Andrew Gray >> andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk >> >> ___ >> 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 > -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] [Spam] Re: Sexualized environment on Commons
h wrote: > > Ryan, thanks for bringing this up for discussion. I've put a lot of thought > into the series of photos this comes from over the years, and it's well > worth some discussion. I'd like to hear what others think about this. Here > is a link to the category for the larger collection; warning, there's lots > of nudity and sexual objectification here, so don't click if you don't want > to see that: > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nude_portrayals_of_computer_technology > > First, I agree with Ryan that in the (various) deletion discussions I've > seen around this and similar topics, there is often a toxic level of > childish and offensive comments. I think that's a significant problem, and I > don't know what can be done to improve it. Scolding people in those > discussions often a backfires, and serves only to amplify the offensive > commentary. But silence can imply tacit consent. How should one participate > in the discussion, promoting an outcome one believes in, without > contributing to or enabling the toxic nature of the discourse? I think I've > done a decent job of walking that line in similar discussions, but I'm sure > there's a lot of room for better approaches. I would love to hear what has > worked for others, here and/or privately. > > > > Also, my initial reaction to these images is that they are inherently > offensive; my gut reaction is to keep them off Commons. > > > > But after thinking it through and reading through a number of deletion > discussions, the conclusion I've come to (at least so far) is that the > decision to keep them (in spite of the childish and offensive commentary > along the way) is the right decision. These strike me as the important > points: > > * We have a collection of more than 20 million images, intended to support a > wide diversity of educational projects. Among those 20 million files are a > great many that would be offensive to some audience. (For instance, if I > understand correctly, *all images portraying people* are offensive to at > least some devout Muslims.) > * Were these images originally intended to promote objectification of women? > To support insightful commentary on objectification of women? Something > else? I can't see into the minds of their creators, but I *can* imagine them > being put to all kinds of uses, some of which would be worthwhile. The > intent of the photographer and models, I've come to believe, is not relevant > to the decision. (apart from the basic issue of consent in the next bullet > point:) > > * Unlike many images on Commons, I see no reason to doubt that these were > produced by consenting adults, and intended for public distribution. > > If they are to be deleted, what is the principle under which we would delete > them? To me, that's the key question. If it's simply the fact that we as > individuals find them offensive, I don't think that's sufficient. If it's > out of a belief that they inherently cause more harm than good, I think the > reasons for that would need to be fleshed out before they could be > persuasive. > > Art is often meant to be provocative, to challenge our assumptions and > sensibilities, to prompt discussion. We host a lot of art on Commons. On > what basis would we delete these, but keep other controversial works of art? > Of course it would be terrible to use these in, for instance, a Wikipedia > article about HTML syntax. But overall, does it cause harm to simply have > them exist in an image repository? My own conclusion with regard to this > photo series is that the net value of maintaining a large and diverse > collection of media, without endorsing its contents per se., outweighs other > considerations. > > > > (For anybody interested in the deletion process on Commons, the kinds of > things that are deliberated, and the way the discussions go, you might be > interested in my related blog post from a couple months ago: > http://wikistrategies.net/wikimedia-commons-is-far-from-ethically-broken/ ) > > > > -Pete > > [[User:Peteforsyth]] > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 23, 2014 at 1:03 PM, Ryan Kaldari > wrote: > > If anyone ever needs a good example of the locker-room environment on > Wikimedia Commons, I just came across this old deletion discussion: > > https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Radio_button_and_female_nude.jpg > > The last two keep votes are especially interesting. One need look no farther > than the current Main Page talk page for more of the same (search for > "premature ejaculation"). > > Kaldari > > > > ___ > 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 > -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Ada Lovelace Day
Hi all, Daria Cybulska (at WMUK) and I are working on organising an event for Ada Lovelace Day (16th October, though ours may fall on the 19th) - http://findingada.com/about/ - "...an international day celebrating the achievements of women in science, technology, engineering and maths". We're modelling it on Sarah's "Women in Science" event at the Smithsonian from earlier this year - which, by happy coincidence, was on almost the same topic, so we get to crib shamelessly. ;-) http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/GLAM/Case_studies/Smithsonian_Institution_Archives/Women_in_Science_Edit-a-thon Has anyone run an event around Lovelace Day in the past? Is anyone else thinking about doing so? We'd be interested to hear about it, if so... Thanks, - Andrew. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Ada Lovelace in Sweden
On 26 September 2012 09:56, Axel Pettersson wrote: > Feel free to add articles to write or expand under "Artiklar att jobba med" > on http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Skrivstuga/Ada_Lovelace_2012 and > sign up for tickets at http://adaskrivstuga2012.eventbrite.com/, "På plats" > if you intend to come to Stockholm to participate and "online" if you want > to help out from other places. Great! I promise I will try and do at least one of them in English for you :-) Anyone else organizing an event? -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] [Wikimediauk-l] Ada Lovelace Day organised by Wikimedia UK - 19 October 2012, London
Hi all. Just to let you know that the Royal Society have shuffled some rooms around and found a lot more tickets for the evening panel session, so if you're in London on Friday evening, please do come along! http://royalsociety.eventbrite.com/ to book. - Andrew. On 17 September 2012 16:49, Daria Cybulska wrote: > Dear all, > > It's Ada Lovelace Day on 16 October and it's most suitable for Wikimedia UK > to get involved. The day exists to celebrate the contributions of women in > the fields of science, technology, engineering and mathematics. As you may > know, Ada Lovelace is considered the first programmer, due to her work on > Charles Babbage's analytical engine. As such, she's someone we can very much > hold up as a role model. Wikimedia UK is organising a Women in Science > themed editing event for Ada Lovelace Day on Friday 19 October 2012 and > would like to invite you to attend! > > We have organised a group 'Edit-a-thon' to improve Wikipedia articles about > women in science, held at the Royal Society's library, London, 2:30-6pm. We > had a very high response from the academic community, and we filled many > more spaces than expected! However, there are still a couple of places free > for people who would like to help train new contributors - please get in > touch if you are interested. There will also be opportunities to get > involved online, which we will publish at our Wikimedia UK event's page (see > below). > > Following the Edit-a-thon there will be an panel discussion with Uta Frith > from the Royal Society and other female scientists on women in science (the > focus will be much broader than just the representation of the topic on > Wikipedia). The panel discussion will take place from 6:30pm - 8:00pm, and > you are most welcome to attend - there are still free places available, so > please feel free to register here > http://royalsociety.org/events/2012/wikipedia-workshop/ > > Wikimedia UK also has a page for the event, which you can see here > http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace_Day_2012 > > Hope to see many of you there. > > Best, > Daria > > > -- > Daria Cybulska - Events Organiser, Wikimedia UK > +44 (0) 207 065 0994 > +44 7803 505 170 > -- > > Wikimedia UK is a Company Limited by Guarantee registered in England and > Wales, Registered No. 6741827. Registered Charity No.1144513. Registered > Office 4th Floor, Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT. > United Kingdom. Wikimedia UK is the UK chapter of a global Wikimedia > movement. The Wikimedia projects are run by the Wikimedia Foundation (who > operate Wikipedia, amongst other projects). > > Wikimedia UK is an independent non-profit charity with no legal control over > Wikipedia nor responsibility for its contents. > > > > ___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Editathon at Oxford, 26th October
Hi all, If you're a student or staff at the University of Oxford, you might like to know that they're organizing an editathon at the Radcliffe Science Library on 26th October. Building on the Royal Society event tomorrow, it's focusing on women in science: http://courses.it.ox.ac.uk/detail/ENGR If you've any questions, please let me know and I'll pass them on to the organisers. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia Women Workshop in Mumbai Report
70+! Amazing turnout. Congratulations to all involved! Andrew. On 5 Nov 2012 10:43, "Krutikaa Jawanjal" wrote: > A Day Spent well. > > The Wikipedia Women Workshop which took place on November, 4th 2012 in > Vidyalankar Institute of Technology (VIT), Wadala was indeed a > success. > > The people who volunteered in organizing this workshop were Bishakha > Datta, Moksh Juneja, Karthik Nadar, Pranav Curumsey, Pradeep Mohandas, > Anshuman Fotedar, Aditi Juneja, Harriet Vidyasagar, Nikita Belavate, > Netra Parikh, Noopur Raval, Netha Hussain. All discussions and > planning done while organizing this workshop for women paid off. In > all, 70+ women participants attended the workshop. > > The workshop started with a short introduction after which, wasting no > time, the women participants moved on to learning how to edit > Wikipedia which was though by the present on ground volunteers. The > participants were were divided in groups and every group had to create > a new article which wasn't already available on Wikipedia. In the > process, women interacted with the volunteers, asked question > regarding Wikipedia. Every group at least had added introduction to > the new article. > > Having done with the basic editing, a general presentation on > Wikipedia was given by some of the volunteers. This was followed by > question and answers regarding the same. By this time, it was already > 1.30pm, so the lunch was announced. After having lunch, the > participants got back to their seats. Pretty much everybody stayed > back post lunch. Moksh continued with teaching how to edit Wikipedia. > This time it wasn't it in groups though. "References" and "Notability" > were the main topics that were covered in this session. > > Anshuman and Karthik then proceeded with teaching photo uploads on > Wikipedia. Quiz was conducted towards the end and Wikipedia-Tshirts > were given as prizes for giving right answers. Karthik, then also > showcased the winning images of Wiki Loves Momunents 2012 India. The > long day came to an end with an overwhelming response and a call for > organizing many such activities. The feedback received was positive. > The participants enjoyed the workshop. > > We are thankful to everybody who made this event a great one. Thanks > to all the volunteers. Special thanks to Moksh and Karthik who went > out of the way to get everything arranged before hand at the venue, to > Netha and Noopur for making it to the workshop and for working hand in > hand with the Mumbai Community, to Srikanth Ramakrishnan who > constantly stayed in touch for online help. > > Special thanks to whole Vidyalankar team. Vishwas Deshpande, Founder > of Vidyalankar, who gave us an opportunity to to do the Mumbai's first > Wiki Workshop for Women at Vidyalankar. Milind Tadvalkar (Director) > and Seema Shah (Principal), Jayprakash Kurmi and Vivek and the > complete IT Team at VIT, Mahesh from Canteen for an awesome Pav Bhaji > for Lunch. Another thanks to Netra Parikh, for giving us enough place > at her office, Pinstorm, for all out pre-meetings. Thanks to all. > > > Regards, > Krutikaa Jawanjal > > ___ > 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
