Re: [Gendergap] New Survey: 9% female editors
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:52 AM, carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: I had a bit of trouble figuring out what the targets and strategy for increasing participation are, however. The part you just pasted linked to http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Summary, which gives these as the 2015 targets: * Increase the total number of people served to 1 billion * Increase the number of Wikipedia articles we offer to 50 million * Ensure information is high quality by increasing the percentage of material reviewed to be of high or very high quality by 25 percent * Encourage readers to become contributors by increasing the number of total editors per month who made 5 edits to 200,000 * Support healthy diversity in the editing community by doubling the percentage of female editors to 25 percent and increase the percentage of Global South editors to 37 percent Did you already see that? If you didn't see that, then I think those are the targets and the last seems to be related to this list. If you already saw it, then what other targets are you looking for? We might have another page bout it somewhere. Casey -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] New Survey: 9% female editors
--- On Sat, 2/7/11, carolmoor...@verizon.net carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: From: carolmoor...@verizon.net carolmoor...@verizon.net Subject: [Gendergap] New Survey: 9% female editors To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 2 July, 2011, 15:52 http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/06/10/wikipedia-editors-do-it-for-fun-first-results-of-our-2011-editor-survey/ Also, interesting statistics on ages, with 30 plus almost as large as 12-29 year olds. Children and teenagers create lots of accounts, but the general run of them can't contribute much any more, and we've blocked lots of schools. If the median age has crept up into the late twenties, that seems like a good sign. In the 2009 survey, it stood at 22: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMFstratplanSurvey1.png I have said this before, but we seem to lack African-American editors, and it's my impression we don't cover African-American culture well. I wonder if we could get an article out on theroot.com There are a few really good and prolific African-American editors, but mass participation is not there, but that kind of fits the demographic. American Hispanics even more so One thing I missed in the recent survey was a specific question about which race and religion editors belonged to. It would be good to have such data, and compare it to general demographics, both in the English-speaking core countries, and the world population in general to identify demographics that are over- or underrepresented. Andreas American Indians barely edit. I edit articles on American Indian history and I don't think I've ever run into an Indian editor. My strategy with any of these groups, and women too, is to generally support them strongly, but not to support any particular campaign they engage in. For example, the idea that Egyptians are Black, which one young African-American woman was promoting strongly, against considerable opposition. So that is the first premise, the door has to be open for everyone and they should be able to depend on strong support by others. Whether they will come in the door is another matter. And how we handle particular strongly held points of view is another. For example, we had a Ute chief come and give a talk in Crestone. Very smart, wise man, an elder, but he made a point of maintaining that the Utes have always lived in the Rocky Mountain west and that any theory about crossing the Bering Strait was just nonsense. That sort of attitude can be documented, of course, but I doubt he could do that if he decided to edit. This guy was about my age so I know he could if he thought it mattered. And that, I guess, is the missing piece, believing, or knowing, that editing matters in shaping global knowledge and consciousness. That is kind of the story of academia, they thought they had a monopoly. Fred ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] New Survey: 9% female editors
On 7/2/2011 12:34 PM, Casey Brown wrote: On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:52 AM,carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: I had a bit of trouble figuring out what the targets and strategy for increasing participation are, however. The part you just pasted linked to http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Summary, which gives these as the 2015 targets: * Increase the total number of people served to 1 billion * Increase the number of Wikipedia articles we offer to 50 million * Ensure information is high quality by increasing the percentage of material reviewed to be of high or very high quality by 25 percent * Encourage readers to become contributors by increasing the number of total editors per month who made5 edits to 200,000 * Support healthy diversity in the editing community by doubling the percentage of female editors to 25 percent and increase the percentage of Global South editors to 37 percent Did you already see that? If you didn't see that, then I think those are the targets and the last seems to be related to this list. Thanks. I must have clicked on strategy again instead of targets by mistake. 25% would be a good start. I dislike phrase Global South since needs too much explanation. But the 2/3 (or whatever percent) of the human population which lives in the economically developing world is a bit of a mouthful. It also helps to remind people that wikimedias exist in dozens of languages, but how to add that to one short phrase, I know not! If you already saw it, then what other targets are you looking for? We might have another page bout it somewhere. Casey ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Re: [Gendergap] New Survey: 9% female editors
Fred, --- On Sat, 2/7/11, Fred Bauder fredb...@fairpoint.net wrote: I have said this before, but we seem to lack African-American editors, and it's my impression we don't cover African-American culture well. I wonder if we could get an article out on theroot.com There are a few really good and prolific African-American editors, but mass participation is not there, but that kind of fits the demographic. I know of one that fits that description (TTT), and there's one (1) admin who indicates African-American (as well as Jewish) on their user page. African-Americans are very active on Twitter (with higher participation rates than Caucasians), but for some reason haven't taken to Wikipedia in their masses. American Hispanics even more so That may in part be a language issue; I would hope that Spanish-speaking Hispanic Americans do contribute to the Spanish Wikipedia. Again, having data would be useful. American Indians barely edit. I edit articles on American Indian history and I don't think I've ever run into an Indian editor. My strategy with any of these groups, and women too, is to generally support them strongly, but not to support any particular campaign they engage in. For example, the idea that Egyptians are Black, which one young African-American woman was promoting strongly, against considerable opposition. I looked in on [[Ancient Egyptian race controversy]] once, and it was not pretty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive44#Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy_ban_review The same problems that women encounter with women's topics are also encountered by editors writing on black studies. For example, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lusala_lu_ne_Nkuka_Luka#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_Marimba_Ani Marimba Ani is unquestionably a notable, black, female scholar, yet we didn't want to have an article on her: http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=Henry+Louis+Gates+african+department#sclient=psyhl=ensafe=offsource=hpq=%22marimba+ani%22aq=faqi=g5aql=oq=pbx=1bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.fp=b662706466cc9ebdbiw=1079bih=848 http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=fsourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=%22marimba+ani%22#q=%22marimba+ani%22hl=ensafe=offtbs=ar:1tbm=nwsprmd=ivnsei=hIcPTpefIcKj8QOG4_CbDgstart=0sa=Nbav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.fp=e5040ccf0930f7ffbiw=1079bih=848 http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=fsourceid=chromeie=UTF-8q=%22marimba+ani%22#q=%22marimba+ani%22hl=ensafe=offprmd=ivnsum=1ie=UTF-8tbo=utbm=bkssource=ogsa=Ntab=npbav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.fp=d0d016e5efcca757biw=1079bih=848 (As a matter of fact, I now know what my next article is going to be.) Having data on African-American participation, rather than guesses based on pictures uploaded to Commons, would help. Outreach to African Studies departments might help, as would an interview with Sue in The Root, or Ebony. Andreas So that is the first premise, the door has to be open for everyone and they should be able to depend on strong support by others. Whether they will come in the door is another matter. And how we handle particular strongly held points of view is another. For example, we had a Ute chief come and give a talk in Crestone. Very smart, wise man, an elder, but he made a point of maintaining that the Utes have always lived in the Rocky Mountain west and that any theory about crossing the Bering Strait was just nonsense. That sort of attitude can be documented, of course, but I doubt he could do that if he decided to edit. This guy was about my age so I know he could if he thought it mattered. And that, I guess, is the missing piece, believing, or knowing, that editing matters in shaping global knowledge and consciousness. That is kind of the story of academia, they thought they had a monopoly. Fred ___ 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] New Survey: 9% female editors
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:44 PM, carolmoor...@verizon.net wrote: I dislike phrase Global South since needs too much explanation. But the 2/3 (or whatever percent) of the human population which lives in the economically developing world is a bit of a mouthful. It also helps to remind people that wikimedias exist in dozens of languages, but how to add that to one short phrase, I know not! You're definitely not alone in that dislike. :-) Here's a definition though, for anyone who's not sure what it means: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_South On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Javier Bassi javierba...@gmail.com wrote: In march 2010 WP had 12% and now its on 9%? Am I right or I'm missing something? :\ The percentage isn't necessarily going down. The two percentages were found through surveys with pretty different methodologies. I think the most recent survey was intended to be more scientific in how it was executed, hopefully giving a more accurate snapshot and more specific numbers. So, pretty much, it's most likely been between 9% and 12% all along, we're just getting an either more accurate number or just a different amount of woman participated -- it doesn't mean that we're doing worse and are losing women we already had. I'm not a statistician or anything, though, so this could all be misguided. ;-) I'm sure someone else would be able to add more here. -- Casey Brown Cbrown1023 ___ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
