Re: [Gendergap] What to do about sexism when we see it on WP?
> However, I also do worry about double standards. For example, earlier > somewhere someone suggested we visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ochre > where a barebreasted woman was used to illustrate the use of it as a > body paint in Africa. I made the point that I really would like to know > if men were painted and if the penis also was painted on men. Something > tells me under that rule someone might have jumped all over me for > "innuendo" since innuendo is in the mind of the behold. I actually in my > mind had a heavy innuendo intention, but objectively speaking it > probably didn't look that way. Others might have seen it as more of an > innuendo than even I meant. > > So bottom line, whether or not it's debated, i think a little more > detail needs to be added to make it clear that strong and intentional > innuendo is a problem. Yes, sexual innuendo is a rather ambiguous term, although certain expressions obviously fall within its definition, and not just in the mind of the beholder. Fred ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Outreach..was.. Proposal: Forking gendergap
On 3/17/2011 3:28 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote: > On Wednesday, March 16, 2011, you wrote: >> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/outreach_letters >> My first draft of any outreach email letter - which I sent an earlier > Good, thank you. > > I think it could be useful to provide some examples of efforts/projects on > this issue that have succeeded, active/promiment Wikipedian women as role > models, and a place to go or be welcomed. Presently, it feels a bit like > "please come and watch out for the 20-something males" which could be > supplemented with "please come, progress can be made, such as [here], there > are other women like you here such as [active/prominent Wikipedians] and come > visit us [at wiki/gendergap/wikichix] if you want/need to." > *Yup, my perspective when I wrote it way back in Mid-February. Probably evolved more in a more positive direction since then. (Of course I also dropped off of a couple of the most annoying articles where the 20 something males were driving me craziest.) So I should update/improve it with all info/insights that have come by since then, including with your suggestions... Others please feel free to draft your own letters. Or maybe we need a "module" letter... In other words sections with suggested language and they can decide what seems most appropriate to them... Like: my experience, why I like it, role models, how to get involved, how to learn more about editing,, how to connect with other women... etc... Will see what can do this weekend... Cm in DC ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] Collective intelligence
--- On Fri, 18/3/11, Joseph Reagle wrote: > From: Joseph Reagle > I just posted the following blog entry, but also attach my > summary of the article (which itself is only ~3 pages). ... and is available to read here: http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/~cfc/Woolley2010a.pdf ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
[Gendergap] Collective intelligence
I just posted the following blog entry, but also attach my summary of the article (which itself is only ~3 pages). [[ http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/collective-intelligence-and-women 2011 Mar 18 | Collective Intelligence and Women A paper that I was happy to read while working on my draft of "Free As in Sexist?" was the recent Science article "Evidence for a Collective Intelligence Factor in the Performance of Human Groups". The researchers found evidence of a "collective intelligence" factor on group tasks that was less related to the highest intelligence member, or the group's average intelligence, than to average social sensitivity, conversational turn-taking, and the proportion of females in the group! They conclude "it would seem to be much easier to raise the intelligence of a group than an individual. Could a group's collective intelligence be increased by, for example, better electronic collaboration tools?" I wonder if those using electronic collaboration tools have their collective intelligence increased via greater female participation?! this entry posted to social/wikipedia; ]] Title: Anita Williams Woolley, Christopher F. Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada Hashmi, Thomas W. Malone Anita Williams Woolley, Christopher F. Chabris, Alex Pentland, Nada Hashmi, Thomas W. Malone ~ Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups j=Science m=October 29 pp=686-688 v=330 y=2010 r=20110318 The authors propose a "collective intelligence" *c* (akin to general intelligence *g*) for groups based on a collection of tasks "from all quadrants of the McGrath Task Circumplex, a well established taxonomy of group tasks based on the coordination processes they require" (e.g., visual puzzles, brainstorming, collective moral judgments, negotiating over limited resources). They conducted two experimental studies (with 699 people total) in which participants work in groups of 2-5 members. The authors found collective intelligence as a factor that accounts for 30-50% of variance between groups. Interestingly, in the first study (40 3-person groups) average and maximum intelligence scores of individual group members does not correlate with *c*. When combining the findings of the two studies, there's a moderate correlation between *c* and average/highest-scoring intelligence, but "c was still a much better predictor of group performance on the criterion tasks then the average or maximum individual intelligence." In turn, three factors were significantly correlated with *c*: average social sensitivity, conversational turn-taking, and the proportion of females in the group (these are likely related). 688 Or importantly, it would seem to be much easier to raise the intelligence of a group than an individual. Could a group's collective intelligence be increased by, for example, better electronic collaboration tools? -- Or could those using electronic collaboration tools, have their collective intelligence increased by greater female participation?! ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] What to do about sexism when we see it on WP?
> On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 13:18, Andreas Kolbe wrote: >> I've added "sexual innuendo" to the en:WP civility policy, under "other >> uncivil behaviours": >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACivility&action=historysubmit&diff=419506099&oldid=416379114 >> >> Andreas >> > Well done, let's hope it holds. :) > > Sarah Those who support this need to discuss this on the talk page if it is to stick. However, it is well within policy. Fred ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] What to do about sexism when we see it on WP?
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 13:18, Andreas Kolbe wrote: > I've added "sexual innuendo" to the en:WP civility policy, under "other > uncivil behaviours": > > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACivility&action=historysubmit&diff=419506099&oldid=416379114 > > Andreas > Well done, let's hope it holds. :) Sarah ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] This list
On 18 March 2011 01:10, Collective Action wrote: > Hi Sue, > > I appreciate your thorough and quick responses:-) > > It's Friday night here in Australia so I'll chew over the questions and > answers over the weekend. I find sitting back and thinking things over > helpful. > > I'm interested in what other people have to say too. Me too. And you're welcome: I was happy to write it :-) ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] What to do about sexism when we see it on WP?
I've added "sexual innuendo" to the en:WP civility policy, under "other uncivil behaviours": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACivility&action=historysubmit&diff=419506099&oldid=416379114 Andreas --- On Fri, 18/3/11, Sarah wrote: > From: Sarah > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] What to do about sexism when we see it on WP? > To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" > > Date: Friday, 18 March, 2011, 13:53 > On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 15:34, Ryan > Kaldari > wrote: > > The behavior you describe is all too common on > Wikipedia (and even worse > > on Commons). I could quote some much more blatant > examples than the one > > you cite, but I'll spare everyone the groans. I think > the problem is > > that most guys do not understand that creating an > unwanted sexualized > > environment is a form of sexism and an abuse of male > privilege (and that > > it has a real effect on women's participation in the > project). Indeed, I > > imagine some do not even comprehend the concept of > "unwanted sexualized > > environment". Perhaps it would be helpful to point > them to: > > http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment > > > > This reminds me of my unsuccessful attempt to get > WP:HOTTIE deleted :( > > > > For the long term, we should think about trying to get > wording added to > > either the Civility policy or the Harassment policy > about offensive > > verbal comments and sexual innuendo. > > > Ryan, thanks for the link to the "sexualized environment" > page. > http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment > Perhaps the > best thing to do when we see these comments is just add a > link to that > page. > > I'd like to try to add something to the civility policy > about sexual > innuendo. I think so long as it's low key we could manage > that fairly > easily (famous last words). > > Sarah > > ___ > 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
Re: [Gendergap] What to do about sexism when we see it on WP?
On Thu, Mar 17, 2011 at 15:34, Ryan Kaldari wrote: > The behavior you describe is all too common on Wikipedia (and even worse > on Commons). I could quote some much more blatant examples than the one > you cite, but I'll spare everyone the groans. I think the problem is > that most guys do not understand that creating an unwanted sexualized > environment is a form of sexism and an abuse of male privilege (and that > it has a real effect on women's participation in the project). Indeed, I > imagine some do not even comprehend the concept of "unwanted sexualized > environment". Perhaps it would be helpful to point them to: > http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment > > This reminds me of my unsuccessful attempt to get WP:HOTTIE deleted :( > > For the long term, we should think about trying to get wording added to > either the Civility policy or the Harassment policy about offensive > verbal comments and sexual innuendo. > Ryan, thanks for the link to the "sexualized environment" page. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Sexualized_environment Perhaps the best thing to do when we see these comments is just add a link to that page. I'd like to try to add something to the civility policy about sexual innuendo. I think so long as it's low key we could manage that fairly easily (famous last words). Sarah ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] This list
Hi Sue, I appreciate your thorough and quick responses:-) It's Friday night here in Australia so I'll chew over the questions and answers over the weekend. I find sitting back and thinking things over helpful. I'm interested in what other people have to say too. regards Rosie Williams http://women4wikipedia.net http://collectiveaction.com.au @collectiveact > From: sgard...@wikimedia.org > Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:21:43 -0700 > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] This list > To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > CC: collective_act...@hotmail.com > > Hi Rosie, > > I will take a crack at answering your questions, in-line below :-) > > > On 17 March 2011 22:41, Collective Action > wrote: > > Dear Sue & All, > > > > I am yet to experience sexism on Wikipedia however my reading of this list > > has only served to confuse me with regard to the gender gap issue. I am > > hoping that someone can clarify the following points with some kind of > > authority. > > > > Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that the Gender > > gap on Wikipedia is a problem that Wikipedia is trying to solve (apparently > > with the help of this list)? > > I can't speak for the Wikipedia editorial volunteer hierarchy. But I > can speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, and yes, we believe the gender > gap is a problem that needs to be solved. Currently, 13% of Wikimedia > editors self-identify as female [1], and we've set ourselves a target > to double that by 2015. > > [1] 13% of respondents to the 2008 UNU-Merit Editor Survey said they > are female. We believe that number is probably a little off, because > although there was a healthy sample size, the methodology probably > resulted in favouring of frequent editors. So the 13% may be a little > skewed, but probably not too much. > > > > > Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that women who > > attempt to contribute to Wikipedia are likely to be subject to chronic > > sexist remarks and that this is presumed to factor into the lower > > participation rates of women? > > I don't think so, no. My personal belief (and my own experiences, and > readings on-wiki) suggest to me that Wikimedians are significantly > less overtly, explicitly sexist than non-Wikimedians. Many, many > online cultures are blatantly misogynist: Wikimedia IMO is not. I'm > not saying that sexist remarks never happen (and of course it depends > what you define as sexist): I would expect that they do. But I don't > think Wikimedia is a particularly sexualized culture; I don't think > it's a culture that tends to stereotype and objectify, and I think > most/many of the men on Wikipedia would recoil from overt sexism. > > That doesn't mean we don't behave in ways that deter women's > participation: I think it's obvious that we do [2]. But I don't think > that direct personal aggressive sexism is particularly present on > Wikipedia. > > (It might be worth knowing that in about a month, we are going to put > a new Editor Survey in the field, that includes a half-dozen questions > about gender and sexism. That will be the first time we've surveyed > editors, male and female, about their experiences and observations > with regard to gender on the Wikimedia projects. So we'll see what > gets reported.) > > > > > What is the responsibility of Wikipedia/Wikimedia in protecting individuals > > from harrassment and in particular, any systemic abuse which is believed to > > be endemic to Wikipedia? > > The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't police editors' behaviour on > Wikipedia. Policing editors' behaviour is a responsibility of the > Wikimedia editorial community, through dispute resolution mechanisms, > the Arbitration Committee, and other avenues. (There are some people > here who can talk about Arb Comm, for example.) The Wikimedia > Foundation just couldn't possibly police it: there are 100,000 editors > here working in 270+ languages, and we would never have the ability to > investigate problems, nor to enforce compliance with behavioural > standards. And ultimately, editors are online volunteers, and if they > are unhappy or feel unsafe, they always have the ability to exercise > their option to stop editing. At the end of the day, they have > alternatives. They are here by choice, and they can leave if they > want. > > Having said that, I do wish that the Wikimedia Foundation could do > more to protect editors from harassment. I believe that only a very > small number of editors has ever faced serious harassment, but I am > aware of some instances in which it's occurred. We have, in a very > small number of instances, offered advice and support of various > kinds. But we can't be responsible for people's safety on Wikipedia, > any more than Facebook, for example, can be responsible for people's > safety there. > > > > > How does Wikipedia take responsibility to ensure that when people come to > > Wikipedia to edit for the first time they are made aware of probl
[Gendergap] A roadmap to the future in place of ¨genealogy¨ of the gendergap
Dear Sue and all, We can suffer under an entropic dispute on the multiple origins of the gendergap Gender discrimination is the consequence of a long historic heritage in most of the peoples of the world (there are notable exceptions). ´ We are in a key moment of history where the gender balance is arriving and we can contribute to make the difference. Let´s try in the most positively way we can together: Emphasising the value of articles, categories, e.a. dedicated to female issues, such as the political process towards women´s rights, articles on UN documents on women, other legislations that facilitates the fully exercise of the potentiality of the female condition. Having some key interviews with prominent women (Michelle Bachelet, Mary Robinson, e.a.) on the WP`s role for helping women, such as the WP interview with Umberto Eco. Traducing articles of interesting cases, figures, e.a. related to the women, from a language to another Motivating young female researchers to write an article on her research (a global appeal to female PhD, for example) Having a small team for assisting editors that would be unsure or sensitive for the process of making articles on female issues and for suggesting topics. WP is essentially a global project with a wonderful and powerful impact worldwide, promoting multicultural and interlingual exchange and cooperation. WP can make an extraordinary contribution to reducing the gendergap too. best regards,patricia --- On Thu, 3/17/11, Collective Action wrote: From: Collective Action Subject: [Gendergap] This list To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Thursday, March 17, 2011, 10:41 PM Dear Sue & All, I am yet to experience sexism on Wikipedia however my reading of this list has only served to confuse me with regard to the gender gap issue. I am hoping that someone can clarify the following points with some kind of authority. Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that the Gender gap on Wikipedia is a problem that Wikipedia is trying to solve (apparently with the help of this list)? Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that women who attempt to contribute to Wikipedia are likely to be subject to chronic sexist remarks and that this is presumed to factor into the lower participation rates of women? What is the responsibility of Wikipedia/Wikimedia in protecting individuals from harrassment and in particular, any systemic abuse which is believed to be endemic to Wikipedia? How does Wikipedia take responsibility to ensure that when people come to Wikipedia to edit for the first time they are made aware of problems they may encounter (both due to their gender and more generally) and the actions they can take to address these issues? What are the roles of the Wikimedia/Wikipedia hierarchy here on the list and do official representatives of these organisations have rights to determine the debate here that go beyond the power of other list members? What, if any quality assaurance guidelines, structure or policy is behind this list and the goal of reducing the gender gap on Wikipedia and the relationship between the two? thankyou for your time Rosie Williams http://women4wikipedia.net http://collectiveaction.com.au @collectiveact > > Message: 4 > Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2011 22:14:24 -0700 > From: Sue Gardner > Subject: [Gendergap] This list > To: gendergap > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > Hi folks, > > Wow! I was absent for two days and this list caught fire! The newer > mails feel like we've been nearer a resolution, but still: there was > lots of heat :-( > > I'm going to take a minute to try to summarize and reflect back a > little. Bear with me: I'm on my phone, so I'm not going to be able to > quote individuals or respond inline to earlier mails. But I have read > everything. > > To recap: Laura originally made a proposal to ask the men on this list > to leave. Her rationale was that men have been inappropriately > dominating the discussion here, which had the effect of silencing > and/or frustrating women who expect and want this to be a safe, > constructive space. I believe that in making that proposal, she was > acting out of frustration not just on her own behalf, but on behalf of > other women here who've been feeling silenced, whether they've spoken > up or not. > > If Laura's proposal had gotten significant support from women on this > list, personally I would take that very seriously. It would make me > sad to think that women here couldn't see a workable option that > includes both women and men - but if there had seemed to be a > consensus among women that a women-only list is desirable or better, I > would buy that as a regrettable-but-accurate expression of where we're > at. > > But, although some people expressed agreement with the basics of what
Re: [Gendergap] This list
Hi Rosie, I will take a crack at answering your questions, in-line below :-) On 17 March 2011 22:41, Collective Action wrote: > Dear Sue & All, > > I am yet to experience sexism on Wikipedia however my reading of this list > has only served to confuse me with regard to the gender gap issue. I am > hoping that someone can clarify the following points with some kind of > authority. > > Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that the Gender > gap on Wikipedia is a problem that Wikipedia is trying to solve (apparently > with the help of this list)? I can't speak for the Wikipedia editorial volunteer hierarchy. But I can speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, and yes, we believe the gender gap is a problem that needs to be solved. Currently, 13% of Wikimedia editors self-identify as female [1], and we've set ourselves a target to double that by 2015. [1] 13% of respondents to the 2008 UNU-Merit Editor Survey said they are female. We believe that number is probably a little off, because although there was a healthy sample size, the methodology probably resulted in favouring of frequent editors. So the 13% may be a little skewed, but probably not too much. > Is there any consensus in the Wikipedia/Wikimedia heirarchy that women who > attempt to contribute to Wikipedia are likely to be subject to chronic > sexist remarks and that this is presumed to factor into the lower > participation rates of women? I don't think so, no. My personal belief (and my own experiences, and readings on-wiki) suggest to me that Wikimedians are significantly less overtly, explicitly sexist than non-Wikimedians. Many, many online cultures are blatantly misogynist: Wikimedia IMO is not. I'm not saying that sexist remarks never happen (and of course it depends what you define as sexist): I would expect that they do. But I don't think Wikimedia is a particularly sexualized culture; I don't think it's a culture that tends to stereotype and objectify, and I think most/many of the men on Wikipedia would recoil from overt sexism. That doesn't mean we don't behave in ways that deter women's participation: I think it's obvious that we do [2]. But I don't think that direct personal aggressive sexism is particularly present on Wikipedia. (It might be worth knowing that in about a month, we are going to put a new Editor Survey in the field, that includes a half-dozen questions about gender and sexism. That will be the first time we've surveyed editors, male and female, about their experiences and observations with regard to gender on the Wikimedia projects. So we'll see what gets reported.) > What is the responsibility of Wikipedia/Wikimedia in protecting individuals > from harrassment and in particular, any systemic abuse which is believed to > be endemic to Wikipedia? The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't police editors' behaviour on Wikipedia. Policing editors' behaviour is a responsibility of the Wikimedia editorial community, through dispute resolution mechanisms, the Arbitration Committee, and other avenues. (There are some people here who can talk about Arb Comm, for example.) The Wikimedia Foundation just couldn't possibly police it: there are 100,000 editors here working in 270+ languages, and we would never have the ability to investigate problems, nor to enforce compliance with behavioural standards. And ultimately, editors are online volunteers, and if they are unhappy or feel unsafe, they always have the ability to exercise their option to stop editing. At the end of the day, they have alternatives. They are here by choice, and they can leave if they want. Having said that, I do wish that the Wikimedia Foundation could do more to protect editors from harassment. I believe that only a very small number of editors has ever faced serious harassment, but I am aware of some instances in which it's occurred. We have, in a very small number of instances, offered advice and support of various kinds. But we can't be responsible for people's safety on Wikipedia, any more than Facebook, for example, can be responsible for people's safety there. > How does Wikipedia take responsibility to ensure that when people come to > Wikipedia to edit for the first time they are made aware of problems they > may encounter (both due to their gender and more generally) and the actions > they can take to address these issues? I think the usual advice to people joining online communities is that they should lurk for a while, read, and get the hang of things. I'm not aware of any special cautioning orientation materials for new people on Wikipedia. (Although as I write this, I do actually remember that when I first started editing, I stumbled across advice on how to remain anonymous, whether or not to use my real name, and some other bits and pieces. But I believe I found it by reading really widely and deeply; it wasn't collected together in one place.) It might actually be a really good project for this group: to aim to create a
