Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[Daniel and Elizabeth Case]

>There have never been anywhere near that many people voting for Arbcom 
>elections; in fact, that's more people than >voted in the last Board of 
>Trustees elections for the elected seats, and hugely more than get a "vote" 
>for the >chapter/affiliate-selected Board seats. 

I wonder if the apparent decline in votes also has to do with the move to 
making the ballots secret—there are more than a few entries on the various 
[[WP:100]] multiples that came from the old way of open ballots, which was 
often an invitation for those unsatisfied with drama to provoke even more of it 
in the ensuing discussion threads, or by the very act of running.

>The fact of the matter is that not that many people actually care about 
>Arbcom, and never really cared. 

+1 (and I would use a higher number, but there’s only one me). Thank you for 
stating one of the biggest unstated truths of Wikipedia in just so many words.

>The people who care are usually those who have interacted with the dispute 
>resolution system on multiple occasions.

And then stating the reason for that truth. I have always believed that the 
amount of drama on-wiki is overstated; most of the people who complain about it 
are the sort of people Risker describes above—people who have been party to 
ArbCom cases, have provided evidence, have supported either those bringing the 
cases or having cases brought against them, have been or are in some way 
formally involved in the dispute resolution process. Some people never go back 
there, or find the experience so dispiriting, even in the case of a favorable 
outcome, that they take a long break or leave the project altogether 
afterwards, because of the way being involved in an ArbCom case or some other 
long-running dispute just takes over your wikilife for the duration. But it 
seems more of those people stay and continue to focus most of their energies on 
the various formal and informal dispute resolution procedures, regardless of 
their involvement.

Now, of course, having a core of otherwise disinterested “watchers” on the 
dispute resolution processes is not a bad thing by itself. The question might 
be whether we have too many, or whether some of those people should remember 
what they came to Wikipedia to do and go back to editing and creating article 
content for a while.

I have also noticed it’s these people, primarily, who seem most pessimistic 
about the state of the project either in person, or on-wiki. Well of course 
they would feel that way if they have changes to ArbCom cases on their RSS 
feeds. One is reminded of the joke about the drunk looking for his lost keys 
under the streetlight.

Your comment suggests an inquiry which might make an interesting paper or 
presentation for someone at some conference or event: See how many of the 
people listed (like myself) on Highly Active Users make how many edits to 
dispute-resolution sections of the site in project namespace like AN/I, Arbcom 
or (prior to its recent deprecation) RFC/U. And how much the heaviest 
contributors to those pages (other than active or former Arbs or clerks, who 
have a reason to do so) make to article namespace. I bet there’s not going to 
be much overlap, that the Venn diagram will be kissing socially at best. 

In fact, it would be interesting to see pages like HAU or whatever broken down 
by edits to namespace. Or have a page that recognizes the heaviest/most active 
contributors to article namespace.

>The majority of active administrators participate, for example; but the number 
>of active admins has also nosedived, so >we may be seeing the effects of that 
>reflected in the interest in voting, and even in the number and quality of 
>>candidates.  Back in the earlier days, there were often 30-40 candidates.  

I participate in ArbCom elections primarily because I am not just an active 
admin, but a functionary as well, and feel a sense of duty and community 
responsibility (Plus there is a higher chance, when one has one of the more 
advanced tools, that decisions on how to use or not use them may possibly 
involve ArbCom cases past, present or future, so it’s a good idea to at least 
keep an eye on things and say your say about who has that job). But it’s not 
something I’ve ever been passionate enough about to the equivalent of, say, 
putting a bumper sticker on my car.

Daniel Case ___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[Risker]

On 9 December 2014 at 15:14, LB  wrote:

> Well, I believe I have on a community member hat, too, although I may be
> sitting in a corner with it right now. Are you familiar with the details of
> my block extension for "evasion"? First, it was made by an admin who
> possibly should *not* have
> 
> because of his involvement
> .
> Second, I explained that it was not me (the last/best yesterday
> .)
> And third, and most convincingly, an (often) opponent of mine explained
> that he didn't believe it was me. Still, the involved, blocking admin
> decided to apply Occam's razor over the benefit of the doubt - or good
> faith, in WP terms.
>
> On a separate note, this makes me wonder about something: Is an editor
> allowed to request an RFC/U on themselves?
>
>

I do know why you were blocked, and I think it was appropriate, and I'll
leave it at that except to point out that the rule was instated in 2007 or
2008 because editors were making a mockery of arbcom cases and other key
discussion spaces by using multiple accounts/editing logged out/pretending
to be someone else/etc.

And no, there's no point in asking for an RFC/U because RFC/U has now been
deprecated:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%
28proposals%29#Do_Away_with_RFC.2FU

You could try an editor review, although that will focus primarily on
editing rather than other issues.

Risker/Anne
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[LB]

Well, I believe I have on a community member hat, too, although I may be
sitting in a corner with it right now. Are you familiar with the details of
my block extension for "evasion"? First, it was made by an admin who
possibly should *not* have

because of his involvement
.
Second, I explained that it was not me (the last/best yesterday
.)
And third, and most convincingly, an (often) opponent of mine explained
that he didn't believe it was me. Still, the involved, blocking admin
decided to apply Occam's razor over the benefit of the doubt - or good
faith, in WP terms.

On a separate note, this makes me wonder about something: Is an editor
allowed to request an RFC/U on themselves?


Lightbreather

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 12:36 PM, Risker  wrote:

> Wearing my community member hat, I'm going to put my hand up and say I'd
> really hate to see *any* blocked user unblocked specifically so they could
> vote in *any* process, whether RFA, AFD, Arbcom or Board of Trustees.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
>
> On 9 December 2014 at 14:33, LB  wrote:
>
>> Here's a thing re the voting.
>>
>> *I wanted to vote*, but couldn't because my original, 1-week "sock"
>> block was extended by a week, for "evading" my block. Setting aside whether
>> the original block was fair - my reason for editing anonymously was for
>> privacy, but others called it avoiding scrutiny - the extension of my block
>> was not fair because the IP that caused it was not me, which I think I
>> argued well.
>>
>> My last effort, on the last day of voting, to get the "evasion" block
>> lifted was going to the unblock IRC (that was quite an experience) and
>> proposing that I only vote and not do anything else until the block
>> extension expired. Admins there would not agree to that proposal, plus they
>> gave me some snark because of my ignorance of how the unblock process works.
>>
>> In fact, added to my list now of not-content issues (and I really would
>> prefer to work on content) to address is the SPI/block process. It was
>> aggravating as hell to want to discuss my situation privately, but be
>> ignored, thereby not being able to defend myself without outing/confirming
>> personal information. My choices were 1. Argue my position publicly and
>> confirm outed, personal information (my IP address), or 2. Stay quiet and
>> look guilty by not denying the charge. I'm still trying to wrap my brain
>> around it.
>>
>> Lightbreather
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:33 AM, GorillaWarfare <
>> gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>>>
 Perhaps one meaningful conclusion is that the fact that in this vote
 there was a lack of process to ensure that systemic bias was avoided
 or measured. It would be better if votes such as Arbcom's or trustee
 elections took active steps to ensure diversity in the voting
 community, and the candidates standing (I believe this is already an
 active process for inviting WMF trustee candidates or appointed
 posts).

>>>
>>> How would you suggest we ensure diversity in the Arbitration Committee
>>> candidates and voting community? It's one thing to *encourage*
>>> diversity among the Committee and voters, and another to *ensure* it.
>>> For one it would require women (and members of other groups that are in the
>>> minority on the Committee and on Wikipedia more widely) to be willing to
>>> run, which I think is asking a lot with the current state of affairs with
>>> respect to the Committee.
>>>
>>> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[Risker]

Wearing my community member hat, I'm going to put my hand up and say I'd
really hate to see *any* blocked user unblocked specifically so they could
vote in *any* process, whether RFA, AFD, Arbcom or Board of Trustees.

Risker/Anne


On 9 December 2014 at 14:33, LB  wrote:

> Here's a thing re the voting.
>
> *I wanted to vote*, but couldn't because my original, 1-week "sock" block
> was extended by a week, for "evading" my block. Setting aside whether the
> original block was fair - my reason for editing anonymously was for
> privacy, but others called it avoiding scrutiny - the extension of my block
> was not fair because the IP that caused it was not me, which I think I
> argued well.
>
> My last effort, on the last day of voting, to get the "evasion" block
> lifted was going to the unblock IRC (that was quite an experience) and
> proposing that I only vote and not do anything else until the block
> extension expired. Admins there would not agree to that proposal, plus they
> gave me some snark because of my ignorance of how the unblock process works.
>
> In fact, added to my list now of not-content issues (and I really would
> prefer to work on content) to address is the SPI/block process. It was
> aggravating as hell to want to discuss my situation privately, but be
> ignored, thereby not being able to defend myself without outing/confirming
> personal information. My choices were 1. Argue my position publicly and
> confirm outed, personal information (my IP address), or 2. Stay quiet and
> look guilty by not denying the charge. I'm still trying to wrap my brain
> around it.
>
> Lightbreather
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:33 AM, GorillaWarfare <
> gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>>
>>> Perhaps one meaningful conclusion is that the fact that in this vote
>>> there was a lack of process to ensure that systemic bias was avoided
>>> or measured. It would be better if votes such as Arbcom's or trustee
>>> elections took active steps to ensure diversity in the voting
>>> community, and the candidates standing (I believe this is already an
>>> active process for inviting WMF trustee candidates or appointed
>>> posts).
>>>
>>
>> How would you suggest we ensure diversity in the Arbitration Committee
>> candidates and voting community? It's one thing to *encourage* diversity
>> among the Committee and voters, and another to *ensure* it. For one it
>> would require women (and members of other groups that are in the minority
>> on the Committee and on Wikipedia more widely) to be willing to run, which
>> I think is asking a lot with the current state of affairs with respect to
>> the Committee.
>>
>> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>>
>> ___
>> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[LB]

Here's a thing re the voting.

*I wanted to vote*, but couldn't because my original, 1-week "sock" block
was extended by a week, for "evading" my block. Setting aside whether the
original block was fair - my reason for editing anonymously was for
privacy, but others called it avoiding scrutiny - the extension of my block
was not fair because the IP that caused it was not me, which I think I
argued well.

My last effort, on the last day of voting, to get the "evasion" block
lifted was going to the unblock IRC (that was quite an experience) and
proposing that I only vote and not do anything else until the block
extension expired. Admins there would not agree to that proposal, plus they
gave me some snark because of my ignorance of how the unblock process works.

In fact, added to my list now of not-content issues (and I really would
prefer to work on content) to address is the SPI/block process. It was
aggravating as hell to want to discuss my situation privately, but be
ignored, thereby not being able to defend myself without outing/confirming
personal information. My choices were 1. Argue my position publicly and
confirm outed, personal information (my IP address), or 2. Stay quiet and
look guilty by not denying the charge. I'm still trying to wrap my brain
around it.

Lightbreather

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 11:33 AM, GorillaWarfare <
gorillawarfarewikipe...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> Perhaps one meaningful conclusion is that the fact that in this vote
>> there was a lack of process to ensure that systemic bias was avoided
>> or measured. It would be better if votes such as Arbcom's or trustee
>> elections took active steps to ensure diversity in the voting
>> community, and the candidates standing (I believe this is already an
>> active process for inviting WMF trustee candidates or appointed
>> posts).
>>
>
> How would you suggest we ensure diversity in the Arbitration Committee
> candidates and voting community? It's one thing to *encourage* diversity
> among the Committee and voters, and another to *ensure* it. For one it
> would require women (and members of other groups that are in the minority
> on the Committee and on Wikipedia more widely) to be willing to run, which
> I think is asking a lot with the current state of affairs with respect to
> the Committee.
>
> – Molly (GorillaWarfare)
>
> ___
> 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] Warning: Email thread hijacking

[Fæ]

Please take care when emailing replies to any inflammatory appearing
emails to the list. You may be receiving emails with identical subject
lines which are from a googlegroup rather than from a Wikimedia list
which will appear to be in the same email thread. An example has been
the discussion about the Arbcom election which even includes email
bodies from the gendergap list in order to fool users.

Checking the details will show "@googlegroups.com" in the from field
and in the footer or names such as "Russia Aviation", thought these
are likely to keep changing.

Unfortunately despite multiple complaints about this group hijacking
users from a Wikimedia list by maliciously harvesting email addresses,
Google has yet to take any visible action.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[GorillaWarfare]

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:45 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> Perhaps one meaningful conclusion is that the fact that in this vote
> there was a lack of process to ensure that systemic bias was avoided
> or measured. It would be better if votes such as Arbcom's or trustee
> elections took active steps to ensure diversity in the voting
> community, and the candidates standing (I believe this is already an
> active process for inviting WMF trustee candidates or appointed
> posts).
>

How would you suggest we ensure diversity in the Arbitration Committee
candidates and voting community? It's one thing to *encourage* diversity
among the Committee and voters, and another to *ensure* it. For one it
would require women (and members of other groups that are in the minority
on the Committee and on Wikipedia more widely) to be willing to run, which
I think is asking a lot with the current state of affairs with respect to
the Committee.

– Molly (GorillaWarfare)
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[Risker]

On 9 December 2014 at 11:08, Tim Davenport  wrote:

>
>
> This represents a drop of at least 36% of participants compared to the 2013 
> election, probably more like 40% after a certain number of ballots are 
> disqualified for failing to meet the editing minimums for vesting of votes 
> established for the election.
>
> That's the big story of the election so far.
>
>
While I very much agree that it's the "big story" of the election, I'll
point out that this election is the first one to use the (very
significantly) redeveloped SecurePoll.  One of the new features is that the
software automatically calculates voter eligibility based on criteria
entered at the time of setting up the poll, so there shouldn't be any
voters disqualified for failing to meet minimal edit counts.

I said *shouldn't*, but it does actually depend on the information entered
when setting up the poll.  That should be available on the logs at
votewiki, I think, but I haven't actually looked.

Risker/Anne
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[Risker]

There have never been anywhere near that many people voting for Arbcom
elections; in fact, that's more people than voted in the last Board of
Trustees elections for the elected seats, and hugely more than get a "vote"
for the chapter/affiliate-selected Board seats.

The fact of the matter is that not that many people actually care about
Arbcom, and never really cared. The people who care are usually those who
have interacted with the dispute resolution system on multiple occasions.
The majority of active administrators participate, for example; but the
number of active admins has also nosedived, so we may be seeing the effects
of that reflected in the interest in voting, and even in the number and
quality of candidates.  Back in the earlier days, there were often 30-40
candidates.

Risker/Anne

On 9 December 2014 at 11:08, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

> On 12/9/2014 9:08 AM, Risker wrote:
>
>> Going to be honest here, I think the more interesting statistic is that
>> there are only 590 voters in an active user base of about 30,000.  I think
>> this may reflect a change in the degree of importance the community places
>> on the Arbitration Committee.
>>
>>  They should say the election isn't valid unless, say, 2000 vote, and
> keep advertising that fact til 2000 vote.  Far too easily manipulated this
> way.
>
> We'll see if the two most problematic candidates because of support for
> anti-GGTF people are elected.
>
>
> ___
> 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] Arbcom election

[Tim Davenport]

Per Fae's message:

>>OOPS,

>>Absolutely correct, I had a programme error. Re-running this gives a
>>more credible set of numbers:
>>Total voted: 590
>>Total identified with gender: 255
>>Male   224
>>Female 31

>>So open males = 38%, open females = 5%. Which indicates that a good
>>*guesstimate* of the number of women voting was 11%.

>>I might also have skipped a voter, I think there should be 591, but I
>>have given up on debugging that one.

>>Fae


I compiled an alphabetical list of voters for the thread on the Arbcom
election at Wikipediocracy yesterday. I also came up with a count of
590 "unscrutinized" voters after filtering out all the redacted
multiple votes.

This represents a drop of at least 36% of participants compared to the
2013 election, probably more like 40% after a certain number of
ballots are disqualified for failing to meet the editing minimums for
vesting of votes established for the election.

That's the big story of the election so far.

I propose that GGTF attempt to (1) poll and (2) personally analyze the
255 "ungendered" voters as to their gender in an attempt to test the
hypothesis that the count of women is underreported in official
statistics.

Those voting in the Arbcom election would seem to make a fine sample
(albeit not truly random) of the 3000 or so core participants at
En-WP.

Tim Davenport

Carrite on WP /// Randy from Boise on WPO

Corvallis, OR
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[Carol Moore dc]

On 12/9/2014 9:08 AM, Risker wrote:
Going to be honest here, I think the more interesting statistic is 
that there are only 590 voters in an active user base of about 
30,000.  I think this may reflect a change in the degree of importance 
the community places on the Arbitration Committee.


They should say the election isn't valid unless, say, 2000 vote, and 
keep advertising that fact til 2000 vote.  Far too easily manipulated 
this way.


We'll see if the two most problematic candidates because of support for 
anti-GGTF people are elected.


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[Fæ]

OOPS,

Absolutely correct, I had a programme error. Re-running this gives a
more credible set of numbers:
Total voted: 590
Total identified with gender: 255
Male   224
Female 31

So open males = 38%, open females = 5%. Which indicates that a good
*guesstimate* of the number of women voting was 11%.

I might also have skipped a voter, I think there should be 591, but I
have given up on debugging that one.

Fae


On 9 December 2014 at 13:55, Katie Chan  wrote:
> On 09/12/2014 13:45, Fæ wrote:
>>
>> The statistic comes from querying the English Wikipedia database. This
>> includes a table of user preferences which itself is where the on-wiki
>> preferences stores information like preferred gender.
>>
>> Here's the SQL for anyone interested (it includes other redundant
>> stuff, I was re-using something I already had to hand):
>> SELECT user_name,
>>  user_editcount,
>>  LEFT(user_registration,4) AS reg,
>>  GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT ug_group SEPARATOR ' ') AS grps,
>>  GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT CONCAT(up_property,':',up_value)) AS prop
>> FROM user u
>> LEFT JOIN user_properties ON up_user=u.user_id
>> LEFT JOIN user_groups ON u.user_id=ug_user
>> WHERE user_name="''' +u +'''"
>>  AND up_property="gender"
>> GROUP BY user_name
>> ORDER BY user_editcount DESC;
>>
>> (Where "u" is a variable iterating over the listed voters.)
>>
>> As others are pointing out, the statistic of 1/590 is a fact
>
>
> Err
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=json&action=query&list=users&ususers=KTC&usprop=gender
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=json&action=query&list=users&ususers=Fluffernutter&usprop=gender
>
> and others.
>
>
> KTC
>
> --
> Katie Chan
> Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the
> author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the
> author is associated with or employed by.
>
>
> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
>  - Heinrich Heine
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[Risker]

Going to be honest here, I think the more interesting statistic is that
there are only 590 voters in an active user base of about 30,000.  I think
this may reflect a change in the degree of importance the community places
on the Arbitration Committee.

On the "female editors participating" front, I'm fairly certain just from
looking at the names and picking out ones I recognize as being women
editors, that at least 10% of the participating electorate was female.  I
never bothered to set my gender preference (indeed, I know that preference
was added to accommodate languages for which the word "user" is
gender-specific, such as German, Spanish, etc), even though I've been
openly female for most of my wiki-career.  (I realise that it sounds like I
"came out" as being a woman...when I look back on the earliest years of
enwiki, there was a far less significant gender imbalance.)

Risker/Anne

On 9 December 2014 at 08:55, Katie Chan  wrote:

> On 09/12/2014 13:45, Fæ wrote:
>
>> The statistic comes from querying the English Wikipedia database. This
>> includes a table of user preferences which itself is where the on-wiki
>> preferences stores information like preferred gender.
>>
>> Here's the SQL for anyone interested (it includes other redundant
>> stuff, I was re-using something I already had to hand):
>> SELECT user_name,
>>  user_editcount,
>>  LEFT(user_registration,4) AS reg,
>>  GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT ug_group SEPARATOR ' ') AS grps,
>>  GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT CONCAT(up_property,':',up_value)) AS prop
>> FROM user u
>> LEFT JOIN user_properties ON up_user=u.user_id
>> LEFT JOIN user_groups ON u.user_id=ug_user
>> WHERE user_name="''' +u +'''"
>>  AND up_property="gender"
>> GROUP BY user_name
>> ORDER BY user_editcount DESC;
>>
>> (Where "u" is a variable iterating over the listed voters.)
>>
>> As others are pointing out, the statistic of 1/590 is a fact
>>
>
> Err
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=json&action=
> query&list=users&ususers=KTC&usprop=gender
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=json&action=
> query&list=users&ususers=Fluffernutter&usprop=gender
>
> and others.
>
>
> KTC
>
> --
> Katie Chan
> Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the
> author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the
> author is associated with or employed by.
>
>
> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
>  - Heinrich Heine
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
> ___
> 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] Arbcom election

[Katie Chan]

On 09/12/2014 13:45, Fæ wrote:

The statistic comes from querying the English Wikipedia database. This
includes a table of user preferences which itself is where the on-wiki
preferences stores information like preferred gender.

Here's the SQL for anyone interested (it includes other redundant
stuff, I was re-using something I already had to hand):
SELECT user_name,
 user_editcount,
 LEFT(user_registration,4) AS reg,
 GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT ug_group SEPARATOR ' ') AS grps,
 GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT CONCAT(up_property,':',up_value)) AS prop
FROM user u
LEFT JOIN user_properties ON up_user=u.user_id
LEFT JOIN user_groups ON u.user_id=ug_user
WHERE user_name="''' +u +'''"
 AND up_property="gender"
GROUP BY user_name
ORDER BY user_editcount DESC;

(Where "u" is a variable iterating over the listed voters.)

As others are pointing out, the statistic of 1/590 is a fact


Err

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=json&action=query&list=users&ususers=KTC&usprop=gender
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?format=json&action=query&list=users&ususers=Fluffernutter&usprop=gender

and others.

KTC

--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is 
associated with or employed by.


Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
 - Heinrich Heine


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[Fæ]

The statistic comes from querying the English Wikipedia database. This
includes a table of user preferences which itself is where the on-wiki
preferences stores information like preferred gender.

Here's the SQL for anyone interested (it includes other redundant
stuff, I was re-using something I already had to hand):
SELECT user_name,
user_editcount,
LEFT(user_registration,4) AS reg,
GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT ug_group SEPARATOR ' ') AS grps,
GROUP_CONCAT(DISTINCT CONCAT(up_property,':',up_value)) AS prop
FROM user u
LEFT JOIN user_properties ON up_user=u.user_id
LEFT JOIN user_groups ON u.user_id=ug_user
WHERE user_name="''' +u +'''"
AND up_property="gender"
GROUP BY user_name
ORDER BY user_editcount DESC;

(Where "u" is a variable iterating over the listed voters.)

As others are pointing out, the statistic of 1/590 is a fact, but it
does not have a context of the sample space. I.e. we know that using
user-preferences is not the way that most people declare stuff about
their identity. If userboxes are more popular that might be an
indicator, however it is difficult to draw any conclusions based on
any retrospective metrics like these, which has been the norm for
discussions on whether there is systemic bias on Wikipedia for many
years, invariably resulting in few solid actions being taken.

Perhaps one meaningful conclusion is that the fact that in this vote
there was a lack of process to ensure that systemic bias was avoided
or measured. It would be better if votes such as Arbcom's or trustee
elections took active steps to ensure diversity in the voting
community, and the candidates standing (I believe this is already an
active process for inviting WMF trustee candidates or appointed
posts). Having the measurements of diversity would then be a good test
as to whether the communications plan was effective and the strategic
targets for improvement were being met.

Fae

On 9 December 2014 at 13:25, Katie Chan  wrote:
> On 09/12/2014 13:14, Fæ wrote:
>>
>> Checking the votes at
>>
>> 
>> against the English Wikipedia database, shows an interesting
>> statistic. Of the 590 votes cast only *one* voter has an account
>> marked with their gender as female.
>
>
> I think your data here is flawed because I count at least multiple voters
> who have their account preferences set to be described using female
> pronouns. Are you actually querying English Wikipedia or Vote-Wiki?
>
> KTC
>
> --
> Katie Chan
> Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the
> author and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the
> author is associated with or employed by.
>
>
> Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
>  - Heinrich Heine
>
>
> ---
> This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
> http://www.avast.com
>
>
>
> ___
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap



-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
Personal and confidential, please do not circulate or re-quote.

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[Katherine Casey]

What proportion of the rest had accounts explicitly marked as male? My
first thought is that most people of all genders probably get to that
section of Preferences, go "Why would mediawiki want to know my gender in
the first place? This is dumb" and skip it. Or they never fiddle with their
preferences to that extent in the first place.

Keep in mind also that "identifies in preferences as female" is not a
unified set with "is female", as you noted. Just glancing at a couple
screens' worth of the log I see a handful of users who I know to be, or
know probably are, female. So I'm hesitant to draw any gender-proportion
conclusions from whether or not people ticked a somewhat obscure box.

This doesn't mean that female voters probably aren't very much in the
minority in the election, but given what we already know about proportion
of females on Wikipedia as a whole, that's entirely consistent with what
expectations would be.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 8:14 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> Checking the votes at
> <
> https://vote.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000&title=Special%3ASecurePoll%2Flist%2F392&dir=prev
> >
> against the English Wikipedia database, shows an interesting
> statistic. Of the 590 votes cast only *one* voter has an account
> marked with their gender as female.
>
> Obviously many people prefer not to use the user preferences on-wiki
> to mark their gender, however it still seems a remarkably low figure
> for a project which has a strategic objective to be welcoming to users
> who identify as women.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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] Arbcom election

[Katie Chan]

On 09/12/2014 13:14, Fæ wrote:

Checking the votes at

against the English Wikipedia database, shows an interesting
statistic. Of the 590 votes cast only *one* voter has an account
marked with their gender as female.


I think your data here is flawed because I count at least multiple 
voters who have their account preferences set to be described using 
female pronouns. Are you actually querying English Wikipedia or Vote-Wiki?


KTC

--
Katie Chan
Any views or opinions presented in this e-mail are solely those of the author 
and do not necessarily represent the view of any organisation the author is 
associated with or employed by.


Experience is a good school but the fees are high.
 - Heinrich Heine


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
http://www.avast.com


___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

[JJ Marr]

What is your proposed solution?
On Dec 9, 2014 8:14 AM, "Fæ"  wrote:

> Checking the votes at
> <
> https://vote.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=1000&title=Special%3ASecurePoll%2Flist%2F392&dir=prev
> >
> against the English Wikipedia database, shows an interesting
> statistic. Of the 590 votes cast only *one* voter has an account
> marked with their gender as female.
>
> Obviously many people prefer not to use the user preferences on-wiki
> to mark their gender, however it still seems a remarkably low figure
> for a project which has a strategic objective to be welcoming to users
> who identify as women.
>
> Fae
> --
> fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae
>
> ___
> 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] Arbcom election

[Fæ]

Checking the votes at

against the English Wikipedia database, shows an interesting
statistic. Of the 590 votes cast only *one* voter has an account
marked with their gender as female.

Obviously many people prefer not to use the user preferences on-wiki
to mark their gender, however it still seems a remarkably low figure
for a project which has a strategic objective to be welcoming to users
who identify as women.

Fae
-- 
fae...@gmail.com https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Fae

___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap