date:20141210

I do agree that people often work out their disputes, but i have also seen, and 
been involved in, cases where the one with the ability to block wins. That is 
the sort of thing that not only drives people out of the project, but also 
causes them to advocate against the project to people they meet. 

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device


-- Original message--
From: Daniel and Elizabeth Case
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:16 PM
To: kerry.raym...@gmail.com;Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to 
increase theparticipation of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

What’s missing from this?:

>I don’t think most disputes get “resolved”. I think one person simply gives 
>up. Maybe they don’t think the issue is that important, >maybe they feel that 
>they don’t have the time to argue it, maybe they feel that the other person 
>involved is too unpleasant to want to try to engage with, maybe they’ve found 
>that no matter what they do, they never make a difference.

Give up? It’s “maybe one person realizes the other person was right, and does 
it their way from then on, without any hard feelings.” It has happened to me 
quite a few times. That’s the sort of outcome I was talking about.

Of course, I think of these in terms of pure content disputes (should we or 
should we not mention something? how should we format this table? and so forth 
...) because that’s what most of those I’ve been involved in have been. 
Disputes over someone’s conduct are something else entirely, because it’s 
harder for people to admit they were wrong in that department. And why I always 
say it cannot be repeated enough that, when you realize the argument is no 
longer about what you were originally arguing about but has instead become a 
meta-argument about the argument itself, you should stop immediately as it will 
no longer accomplish anything constructive to continue.

Daniel Case


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

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

2014-12-10 Thread Daniel and Elizabeth Case

What’s missing from this?:

>I don’t think most disputes get “resolved”. I think one person simply gives 
>up. Maybe they don’t think the issue is that important, >maybe they feel that 
>they don’t have the time to argue it, maybe they feel that the other person 
>involved is too unpleasant to want to try to engage with, maybe they’ve found 
>that no matter what they do, they never make a difference.
Give up? It’s “maybe one person realizes the other person was right, and does 
it their way from then on, without any hard feelings.” It has happened to me 
quite a few times. That’s the sort of outcome I was talking about.
Of course, I think of these in terms of pure content disputes (should we or 
should we not mention something? how should we format this table? and so forth 
...) because that’s what most of those I’ve been involved in have been. 
Disputes over someone’s conduct are something else entirely, because it’s 
harder for people to admit they were wrong in that department. And why I always 
say it cannot be repeated enough that, when you realize the argument is no 
longer about what you were originally arguing about but has instead become a 
meta-argument about the argument itself, you should stop immediately as it will 
no longer accomplish anything constructive to continue.
Daniel Case
 ___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

2014-12-10 Thread Kerry Raymond

I don't think most disputes get "resolved". I think one person simply gives
up. Maybe they don't think the issue is that important, maybe they feel that
they don't have the time to argue it, maybe they feel that the other person
involved is too unpleasant to want to try to engage with, maybe they've
found that no matter what they do, they never make a difference. (I've
walked away for all of those. But it doesn't mean the person involved is
happy with the outcome, it's probably just another of those "straws" that
eventually break the camel's back and one day the person walks away forever
from contributing.

 

Kerry

 

  _  

From: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Daniel and
Elizabeth Case
Sent: Thursday, 11 December 2014 6:27 AM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase
theparticipationof women within Wikimedia projects.
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

 

>I bet the majority of people 1) have no clue what arbcom is 2) probably
don't care much if they do because most people won't end up there 

 

Exactly. I suspect the irrelevance of ArbCom to so many editors is perhaps a
good thing ... perhaps more disputes than we are ever aware of get resolved
at the lowest levels, the way they're supposed to be, with no long-term
effect on the participants' enthusiasm for contributing further.

 

Daniel Case

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

Re: [Gendergap] Women, cliques and Wikipedia's tyranny of structurelessness


 
  Yes, constructive and I shall watch with interest.Willing to do my bit exposing, but find I'm having to learn PHP (a website scripting language) first to accomplish what I want to do.
  Marinka
  
   On December 10, 2014 at 7:02 PM Carol Moore dc  wrote:On 12/10/2014 5:14 PM, JJ Marr wrote:>> Does anyone have a proposed "action plan" to do anything about this?>First, there definitely are all kinds of groupings and cliques and maybe even a couple dominated by women. Given it was one particular group of guys and their allies that went after GGTF, some of us do tend to focus on them. But in other editing areas it might be some other group.But obviously there are lots of free lance guys who just let vent at other editors, especially ones they think might be women.Anyway, I've been collecting a lot of proposals over the last six months from this list and all sorts of Wikipedia pages; I have a few other sources to investigate. At some point after holidays will organize them by category and add any news ones people see I've forgotten or may come up with. Research to look at the options is the first step in any good campaign :-)Then people can prioritize them both in terms of which they think are most promising and easiest to enact and in terms of which they themselves might want to work on. (Eight people working hard on some minor low priority might be more effective than 20 just generally supporting a higher priority one. Squeaky wheels get the crease and all that.) And then come up with specific proposals and plans for getting them enacted.I have various sources around on how to plan and actualize a successful campaign will look at and share the best and most relevant.And hopefully lots of others will be doing the same! And if somebody meantime writes that big embarrassing expose filled with great reform ideas that gets WMF's butt moving, more power to them!! (Feel free to hurry up so I don't have to! :-)CM___Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
  
 


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

Re: [Gendergap] Women, cliques and Wikipedia's tyranny of structurelessness


On 12/10/2014 5:14 PM, JJ Marr wrote:


Does anyone have a proposed "action plan" to do anything about this?

First, there definitely are all kinds of groupings and cliques and maybe 
even a couple dominated by women. Given it was one particular group of 
guys and their allies that went after GGTF, some of us do tend to focus 
on them.  But in other editing areas it might be some other group.


But obviously there are lots of free lance guys who just let vent at 
other editors, especially ones they think might be women.


Anyway, I've been collecting a lot of proposals over the last six months 
from this list and all sorts of Wikipedia pages; I have a few other 
sources to investigate.  At some point after holidays will organize them 
by category and add any news ones people see I've forgotten or may come 
up with.  Research to look at the options is the first step in any good 
campaign :-)


Then people can prioritize them both in terms of which they think are 
most promising and easiest to enact and in terms of which they 
themselves might want to work on.  (Eight people working hard on some 
minor low priority might be more effective than 20 just generally 
supporting a higher priority one.  Squeaky wheels get the crease and all 
that.)  And then come up with specific proposals and plans for getting 
them enacted.


I have various sources around on how to plan and actualize a successful 
campaign will look at and share the best and most relevant.


And hopefully lots of others will be doing the same!  And if somebody 
meantime writes that big embarrassing expose filled with great reform 
ideas that gets WMF's butt moving, more power to them!!  (Feel free to 
hurry up so I don't have to! :-)


CM


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

Re: [Gendergap] Women, cliques and Wikipedia's tyranny of structurelessness


 
  Agree with Anne her first, with the proviso it's not only point of view at stake but honest to goodness vested interests as well; obviously so for the academics who hold tenure, or at least gain status, on the strength of their wikipedia contributions, and the rising younger generation who seek to achieve the same without the inconvenience of publishing papers in peer-reviewed journals. The same for those who wish to achieve status in Wikipedia itself. Then there are the camp followers without a social life who get a sort of coy kitty substitute for one from Wikipedia instead, indeed the very many not there to build an encyclopaedia but rather there to build and prettify a Talk page. It's not always about point of view. In the end it's about bonding and marking territory, that in itself a male-dominated activity, and so we come back to the cliques; but in many cases I suggest the point of the clique is the clique itself. As for the gender-gap in that scenario, you might as well ask why there are comparatively so few girl skateboarders: here's a few for the cliquers to work up http://uk.complex.com/sports/2012/06/the-10-sexiest-female-skateboarders/ (erm ... that was rhyming slang).
  Marinka
  
  
   On December 10, 2014 at 2:46 PM Risker  wrote:
   
   
   

 
  
   
Carol said:
 
 I do think there are structural things that can be imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation to make reforms happen.  (Whether they'll choose the right reforms and the right people to make them happen is a whole 'nother story.) 
But the purpose of this thread is not to discuss specific reforms, but to 
focus on the issue of male dominated Wikipedia cliques intent on keeping Wikipedia a place where dominant males don't have to put up with these damned women (or "radical feminist c*nts/tw*ats" in their minds) who keep yammering about making Wikipedia a nice (or even safe!) place to edit. Discussion of some womens' complicity in all this obviously is relevant too.
      
   
  
  
    
  
  
    
  
  
   I'm not certain you've got it right here, Carol.  I think the cliques (which, given the overall makeup of the project, are almost always male-dominated) don't want to put up with *anyone*, male or female, that opposes their view.  I've seen female-dominated cliques on the project (rare as they are) behave equally appallingly.  There are corners of the project where any interloper, regardless of gender, is treated with the back of the hand by the "regulars", whether those regulars are male or female. 
  
  
    
  
  
   A friend of mine recently reminded me of the language of "southern ladies" and how they often use perfectly normal sounding phrases to cut people to the core.  (A classic example would be "bless his heart" or, more emphatically, "bless his dear little heart" - which to all the world reads like a slight eye-roll, but is actually properly decoded as "that idiot" or (more emphatically) "that *frickin* idiot".)  I've seen a lot of examples of that on Wikipedia, where it's been so obvious that the written word *reads* civilly but is intended as a cutting insult - in my experience, women editors use this method out of proportion to the percentage of women on the project - and in some ways it is an even greater insult because it's hard to persuade others that what look like civil words are being used to convey quite the opposite meaning. 
  
  
    
  
  
   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

Re: [Gendergap] Women, cliques and Wikipedia's tyranny of structurelessness

2014-12-10 Thread JJ Marr

Does anyone have a proposed "action plan" to do anything about this?
On Dec 10, 2014 3:05 PM, "regu...@gmail.com"  wrote:

> I agree with most of what risker says. There are several groups on the
> project that exert undue influence over their articles whether male or
> female. If the wmf gets involvedvat all, it should be to ensure that
> policies are enforced evenly throughout the project and these,power cabals
> are broken up.
>
>
>
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original message--
>
> *From: *Risker
>
> *Date: *Wed, Dec 10, 2014 2:46 PM
>
> *To: *Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
> participation of women within Wikimedia projects.;
>
> *Subject:*Re: [Gendergap] Women, cliques and Wikipedia's tyranny of
> structurelessness
>
>
>
>> Carol said:
>>
>> I do think there are structural things that can be imposed by the
>> Wikimedia Foundation to make reforms happen.  (Whether they'll choose the
>> right reforms and the right people to make them happen is a whole 'nother
>> story.) *But the purpose of this thread is not to discuss specific
>> reforms, but to **focus on the issue of male dominated Wikipedia cliques
>> intent on keeping Wikipedia a place where dominant males don't have to put
>> up with these damned women (or "radical feminist c*nts/tw*ats" in their
>> minds) who keep yammering about making Wikipedia a nice (or even safe!)
>> place to edit.* Discussion of some womens' complicity in all this
>> obviously is relevant too.
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> I'm not certain you've got it right here, Carol.  I think the cliques
> (which, given the overall makeup of the project, are almost always
> male-dominated) don't want to put up with *anyone*, male or female, that
> opposes their view.  I've seen female-dominated cliques on the project
> (rare as they are) behave equally appallingly.  There are corners of the
> project where any interloper, regardless of gender, is treated with the
> back of the hand by the "regulars", whether those regulars are male or
> female.
>
> A friend of mine recently reminded me of the language of "southern ladies"
> and how they often use perfectly normal sounding phrases to cut people to
> the core.  (A classic example would be "bless his heart" or, more
> emphatically, "bless his dear little heart" - which to all the world reads
> like a slight eye-roll, but is actually properly decoded as "that idiot" or
> (more emphatically) "that *frickin* idiot".)  I've seen a lot of examples
> of that on Wikipedia, where it's been so obvious that the written word
> *reads* civilly but is intended as a cutting insult - in my experience,
> women editors use this method out of proportion to the percentage of women
> on the project - and in some ways it is an even greater insult because it's
> hard to persuade others that what look like civil words are being used to
> convey quite the opposite meaning.
>
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

2014-12-10 Thread Daniel and Elizabeth Case

>I bet the majority of people 1) have no clue what arbcom is 2) probably don't 
>care much if they do because most people won't end up there 
Exactly. I suspect the irrelevance of ArbCom to so many editors is perhaps a 
good thing ... perhaps more disputes than we are ever aware of get resolved at 
the lowest levels, the way they’re supposed to be, with no long-term effect on 
the participants’ enthusiasm for contributing further.
Daniel Case___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] PLEASE UNSUBSCRIBE ME TO THIS MAILING LIST!

2014-12-10 Thread Selina Robertson


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

Re: [Gendergap] Warning: Email thread hijacking

2014-12-10 Thread Daniel and Elizabeth Case






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


I unsubscribed from that group after some particularly vitriolic abuse 
directed at Fae, something that actually managed to repulse me into hitting 
unsubscribe almost immediately, abuse that had absolutely nothing really to 
do with the purported issue under which it was raised, making it apparent 
that the person in question was really just looking for an opportunity to 
say it. I do not want that in my inbox.


I recommend everyone else here who cares about the values this list is meant 
to uphold do likewise ASAP.


Daniel Case 



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

Re: [Gendergap] Women, cliques and Wikipedia's tyranny of structurelessness

I agree with most of what risker says. There are several groups on the project 
that exert undue influence over their articles whether male or female. If the 
wmf gets involvedvat all, it should be to ensure that policies are enforced 
evenly throughout the project and these,power cabals are broken up. 

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device


-- Original message--
From: Risker
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 2:46 PM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation 
of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] Women, cliques and Wikipedia's tyranny of 
structurelessness

Carol said:

I do think there are structural things that can be imposed by the Wikimedia 
Foundation to make reforms happen.  (Whether they'll choose the right reforms 
and the right people to make them happen is a whole 'nother story.) But the 
purpose of this thread is not to discuss specific reforms, but to focus on the 
issue of male dominated Wikipedia cliques intent on keeping Wikipedia a place 
where dominant males don't have to put up with these damned women (or "radical 
feminist c*nts/tw*ats" in their minds) who keep yammering about making 
Wikipedia a nice (or even safe!) place to edit. Discussion of some womens' 
complicity in all this obviously is relevant too.

   


I'm not certain you've got it right here, Carol.  I think the cliques (which, 
given the overall makeup of the project, are almost always male-dominated) 
don't want to put up with *anyone*, male or female, that opposes their view.  
I've seen female-dominated cliques on the project (rare as they are) behave 
equally appallingly.  There are corners of the project where any interloper, 
regardless of gender, is treated with the back of the hand by the "regulars", 
whether those regulars are male or female. 

A friend of mine recently reminded me of the language of "southern ladies" and 
how they often use perfectly normal sounding phrases to cut people to the core. 
 (A classic example would be "bless his heart" or, more emphatically, "bless 
his dear little heart" - which to all the world reads like a slight eye-roll, 
but is actually properly decoded as "that idiot" or (more emphatically) "that 
*frickin* idiot".)  I've seen a lot of examples of that on Wikipedia, where 
it's been so obvious that the written word *reads* civilly but is intended as a 
cutting insult - in my experience, women editors use this method out of 
proportion to the percentage of women on the project - and in some ways it is 
an even greater insult because it's hard to persuade others that what look like 
civil words are being used to convey quite the opposite meaning. 

Risker/Anne


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

Re: [Gendergap] Women, cliques and Wikipedia's tyranny of structurelessness

2014-12-10 Thread Risker

>
> Carol said:
>
> I do think there are structural things that can be imposed by the
> Wikimedia Foundation to make reforms happen.  (Whether they'll choose the
> right reforms and the right people to make them happen is a whole 'nother
> story.) *But the purpose of this thread is not to discuss specific
> reforms, but to **focus on the issue of male dominated Wikipedia cliques
> intent on keeping Wikipedia a place where dominant males don't have to put
> up with these damned women (or "radical feminist c*nts/tw*ats" in their
> minds) who keep yammering about making Wikipedia a nice (or even safe!)
> place to edit.* Discussion of some womens' complicity in all this
> obviously is relevant too.
>
>
>


I'm not certain you've got it right here, Carol.  I think the cliques
(which, given the overall makeup of the project, are almost always
male-dominated) don't want to put up with *anyone*, male or female, that
opposes their view.  I've seen female-dominated cliques on the project
(rare as they are) behave equally appallingly.  There are corners of the
project where any interloper, regardless of gender, is treated with the
back of the hand by the "regulars", whether those regulars are male or
female.

A friend of mine recently reminded me of the language of "southern ladies"
and how they often use perfectly normal sounding phrases to cut people to
the core.  (A classic example would be "bless his heart" or, more
emphatically, "bless his dear little heart" - which to all the world reads
like a slight eye-roll, but is actually properly decoded as "that idiot" or
(more emphatically) "that *frickin* idiot".)  I've seen a lot of examples
of that on Wikipedia, where it's been so obvious that the written word
*reads* civilly but is intended as a cutting insult - in my experience,
women editors use this method out of proportion to the percentage of women
on the project - and in some ways it is an even greater insult because it's
hard to persuade others that what look like civil words are being used to
convey quite the opposite meaning.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Moving forward

2014-12-10 Thread Risker

While I would continue to oppose the concept of a "slate" of candidates
regardless of what "slate" they were representing (and I am fairly certain
that the wider community would find it very inappropriate, too, having
deprecated slates from Day One) I think there is some value in trying to
recruit quality candidates for the Arbitration Committee.  This year not a
single woman ran for a seat - at a few points during my own tenure, which
ended only last year, we had three women on the committee.

Risker/Anne

On 10 December 2014 at 11:53, Jim Hayes  wrote:

> i take the point that arbcom is overrated
> we see how difficult it is for them to enforce even site bans as in the
> case of betacommand
>
> and the point that it takes away from talking about image uploads or
> infoboxes at editathons.
> it is optimistic to imagine that we can train newbies to get to 150 edits,
> and then show up for voting 6 months later.
>
> however, we need to move from outrage, to plan, to action.
> low turnout provides a mechanism where we can gain control of what levers
> there are, aside from our civil community circles.
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Sarah Stierch 
> wrote:
>
>> I agree with all Jim says here. I also think the incentive of regular
>> editing is too low - why hangout on Wikipedia after a long day at work or
>> school or caring for a child when you can space out with Netflix or do
>> something with more incentive (I am knee deep in Wikidata right nowand
>> have written more Yelp reviews than I have Wikipedia articles this
>> yearwith yelp I have elite status and get to go to free parties with
>> free food and booze..and no one yells at me for typos)
>>
>> But I have been saying the same crap for 4 years now. So this broken
>> record will go back to her open data sets...
>>
>> :-)
>>
>> Sarah
>> On Dec 10, 2014 6:08 AM, "Jim Hayes"  wrote:
>>
>>> there is a lack of continuity studying editing behaviors,
>>> it is all one-off studies, not longitudinal
>>> they only know "editor decline" because it's an easy data dump.
>>> that said, there is some data from editations being gathered by eval &
>>> testing group.
>>>
>>> we fund editathons because the primary goal is institutional engagement,
>>> not editor training. we do the training, because editing is a barrier to
>>> entry, (learning curve is too hard)
>>> a process with a 1% yield may need to be reinforced, since no process =
>>> 0% yield.
>>> there needs to be a culture change, beyond the "editors are a a dime a
>>> dozen"
>>> we can not rely on self-starters to become productive; the rate is not
>>> large enough to replace the leaving editors. too much needs to be done, for
>>> the existing numbers
>>>
>>> until there is a change to the bitey culture, newbies will stay away, or
>>> not edit except at editathons.
>>> until then, we can organize circles of civility, and provide some
>>> positive reinforcement.
>>> we need to develop norms that may be outside of wiki process, i.e. no
>>> AfC, and push those that work, VE, teahouse, off wiki organization.
>>>
>>> arbcom or WMF, are now saying the right words, but do not have a plan or
>>> the will to implement. the GGTF case tends to undermine the credibility of
>>> arbcom.
>>>
>>> slow
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Sarah Stierch 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Just a gentle reminder..that the work we did evaluating edit-a-thons
 and workshops when I worked at WMF showed that they do not retain new
 editors.[1]

 They're good for getting people aware about Wikipedia - and people do
 edit while they are at the event, but, newer editors rarely edit AFTER the
 event, that is until the next event happensso they aren't probably the
 magic way to solve the gender gap. Even those that involve academics, etc.
 I even evaluated my own edit-a-thons that I had implemented and saw the
 same trend, much to my dismay.

 However, providing quality mechanisms of education, outreach, and help
 can. We see that with the Teahouse.

 WMF told me a while ago they weren't going to invest in surveys,
 programming, etc and that it was up to the chapters and the "community" to
 take the initiative and be proactive. That was one of the biggest
 challenges of my fellowship - while I worked on two successful projects
 (Teahouse/WWC) and am very proud to have done that, I was really sad that
 more research and direct outreach was not going to be implemented. I've
 said it before and I'll say it again - I was broken hearted that I wasn't
 going to do more direct outreach to groups, institutions, and so forth. If
 we were able to make womencentric/diversity events part of institutional
 change internationally I think we could have seen a larger impact - like
 what GLAM-Wiki did. People go around and preach the gospel internationally
 and now GLAM-Wiki is almost old news.. lots of people are doing it...

 (Of co

Re: [Gendergap] internet fraud or whatever and Google Group scam (was: re: meetups:)

[merely changing the subject]


-- 

Sarah Stierch

-

Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.

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

Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

2014-12-10 Thread Nathan

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:39 PM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

> Speculation on the monetary gain definition of fraud is lots of
> fun. However,  we all know fraud has a wider meaning as
> two dictionary definitions show.
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud
> 1 a :  deceit, trickery; specifically :  intentional perversion of truth
> in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender
> a legal right
> b :  an act of deceiving or misrepresenting :  trick
> 2. a :  a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; also
> :  one who defrauds :  cheat
> b :  one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
>
> http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud?s=t
> noun
> 1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated
> for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
> 2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election
> frauds.
> 3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a
> waste of time.
> 4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.
>
> I think most people who were victim of some false
> email pretending they engaged in obnoxous or
> illegal behavior would say the email was a fraud
> and the person who sent it was one too..
>
>
>
>
 I suspect "Internet fraud" has a narrower definition. In any case, an IP
with a single edit removing information that someone else asked be removed
is not proof even of deception, let alone any definition of fraud. And as
convincing as LB's protests sound (and they do sound convincing), Risker
and other people with CU experience have declined to overturn or speak
against the block extension.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

Good points carol and i would add that i dont trust the checkuser tool more 
than 50%. Its easy to fool, hard to read the data and interpret the results. 
90% of it is gut instinct and spotting vocal trends and writing style by the 
user. I have seen first hand that not only is it prone to error, but many in 
the community give it far more trust than it deserves.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device


-- Original message--
From: Carol Moore dc
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 1:15 PM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation 
of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

On 12/10/2014 12:47 PM, Nathan wrote:
> No, nothing described below constitutes fraud of any kind.

On 12/10/2014 1:01 PM, regu...@gmail.com wrote:
That depends on how you interpret it. No monetary gain was there but they a r e 
userping someones identity for personal gain.

How do you know?

For example, maybe there are secretly for profit, paid editors
on Wikipedia who feel threatened by more Admin and/or
Foundation scrutiny of the kind that some editors have
been promoting, sometimes for years.

GGTF has too many snoopy, boat rocking editors.
Getting rid of such editors allows them to continue to make
money without pesky snoops. If faking IPs helps discredit those
editors and get them blocked, so they can continue their
secret paid editing, that's fraud.

Or maybe someone who doesn't like GGTF or Lightbreather
paid someone $50 to fake the IP and Lightbreather-like
comments in order to cover their tracks.

Maybe there's someone making a good living faking
3 or 4 IPs a week in some topic area where some
organization wants to discredit some BLPs or
companies or even a whole nation.  So they flood
the topic area with socks from phony IPs
and then it's easy to claim new editors are socks
and get rid of them before they can learn
the ropes and deal with POV edits.

I'm sure there are all sorts of more examples
of what might be happening we could come up with.

 So don't claim there is no fraud when there could
be fraud going on...

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

Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?


Speculation on the monetary gain definition of fraud is lots of
fun. However,  we all know fraud has a wider meaning as
two dictionary definitions show.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fraud
1 a :  deceit, trickery; specifically :  intentional perversion of truth 
in order to induce another to part with something of value or to 
surrender a legal right

b :  an act of deceiving or misrepresenting :  trick
2. a :  a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor; 
also :  one who defrauds :  cheat

b :  one that is not what it seems or is represented to be

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fraud?s=t
noun
1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, 
perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; 
election frauds.
3. any deception, trickery, or humbug: That diet book is a fraud and a 
waste of time.

4. a person who makes deceitful pretenses; sham; poseur.

I think most people who were victim of some false
email pretending they engaged in obnoxous or
illegal behavior would say the email was a fraud
and the person who sent it was one too..

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

Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

2014-12-10 Thread Nathan

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:15 PM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

>
>  How do you know?
>
> For example, maybe there are secretly for profit, paid editors
> on Wikipedia who feel threatened by more Admin and/or
> Foundation scrutiny of the kind that some editors have
> been promoting, sometimes for years.
>
> GGTF has too many snoopy, boat rocking editors.
> Getting rid of such editors allows them to continue to make
> money without pesky snoops. If faking IPs helps discredit those
> editors and get them blocked, so they can continue their
> secret paid editing, that's fraud.
>
> Or maybe someone who doesn't like GGTF or Lightbreather
> paid someone $50 to fake the IP and Lightbreather-like
> comments in order to cover their tracks.
>
> Maybe there's someone making a good living faking
> 3 or 4 IPs a week in some topic area where some
> organization wants to discredit some BLPs or
> companies or even a whole nation.  So they flood
> the topic area with socks from phony IPs
> and then it's easy to claim new editors are socks
> and get rid of them before they can learn
> the ropes and deal with POV edits.
>
> I'm sure there are all sorts of more examples
> of what might be happening we could come up with.
>
>  So don't claim there is no fraud when there could
> be fraud going on...
>
> CM
>
>
Those are some outlandishly unlikely scenarios, just as unlikely as you
being secretly an impersonator of the real Carol Moore hired to defame the
real Carol by getting banned on Wikipedia. As I said, outlandish and
unlikely. In the absence of evidence of fraud, concluding that fraud exists
("Let's call it what it is... Internet fraud") defies reason.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

[Gendergap] Women, cliques and Wikipedia's tyranny of structurelessness

This NY Times article - "Learning to Love Criticism" by Tara Mohrsept - 
itself has been criticized for downplaying the negative effects constant 
criticism has on women; salient quotes: 
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/28/opinion/sunday/learning-to-love-criticism.html?_r=0


/A NEW study by the linguist and tech entrepreneur Kieran Snyder, done 
for Fortune.com, found two differences between workplace performance 
reviews given to men and women. Across 248 reviews from 28 companies, 
managers, whether male or female, gave female employees more negative 
feedback than they gave male employees. Second, 76 percent of the 
negative feedback given to women included some kind of personality 
criticism, such as comments that the woman was "abrasive," "judgmental" 
or "strident." Only 2 percent of men's critical reviews included 
negative personality comments.//

//
//... If a woman wants to do substantive work of any kind, she's going 
to be criticized --- with comments not just about her work but also 
about herself. She must develop a way of experiencing criticism that 
allows her to persevere in the face of it//

//
//... For centuries, women couldn't protect their own safety through 
physical, legal or financial means. We couldn't rely on the law if our 
safety was threatened. We couldn't use our own money to escape or 
safeguard ourselves and our children, because we could not own property. 
Being likable, or at least acceptable to stronger, more powerful others, 
was one of our primary available survival strategies. For many women 
around the world, this is still the reality, but all women inherit the 
psychological legacy of that history. Disapproval, criticism and the 
withdrawal of others' approval can feel so petrifying for us at times 
--- life-threatening even --- because for millenniums, it was.//
//Add to this history what we see in our time: Powerful women tend to 
receive overreactive, shaming and inappropriately personal criticism. 
//... /


She then goes on to explore some ways women can adjust their own 
attitudes to deal with all this criticism. *And while most strategies 
seem OK, she ignores that womens real work has to be adjusting the 
mindsets of those males who believe that unrelenting criticism of women 
is permissible and even laudatory.*


Right now on Wikipedia various womens' adjustment strategies or coping 
mechanisms include: 1) run away from any article where there's 
criticism; 2) be nice to/ make friends with powerful editors who will 
protect you from critics; 3) become one of the boys (even if it means 
not letting them know you are a woman); 4) don't respond to critics and 
harassers, just build up a record you can take to ANI maybe someday; 5)  
defend yourself/argue back (and get labeled drama queens and 
troublemakers);  6) some combination of the above; 7) the most popular 
option - QUIT!


What's the problem and what's the solution? Wikipedia suffers from the 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness


*The current organizational structure (or lack thereof) encourages the 
most dominating and manipulative males with a strong pro-male/pro-male 
gang mentality to drive out anyone, male or female, who doesn't hop to 
their political, policy or other agenda. It's a problem infecting 
editors, administrators and more and more ArbCom.*


The "Tyranny of Structurelessness" essay is a feminist analysis of 
consensus-oriented groups without formal leaders. It discusses how "this 
apparent lack of structure too often disguised an informal, 
unacknowledged and unaccountable leadership that was all the more 
pernicious because its very existence was denied."


I myself like spontaneous order and participatory, consensus oriented 
democracy, but I've also seen no rules and minimal rules abused by 
cliques in organizations, activist groups and at Wikipedia.  Let's face 
it, some people are very clique oriented in organization settings.  
Clique members often are "apparatchiks" - people who may or may not 
believe in the cause, but definitely believe in getting all the power, 
perks and privileges out of the organization they can.  Both more and 
less structured organizations always have a fight to keep these cliques 
from looting the organization and/or pushing through agendas with which 
the great majority of supporters and participants disagree.


Other organizational members reject joining such tight  knit clique, 
though they may make friends or join loose alliances.  Others can't help 
but fight the cliques - and take their punishment for doing so. Their 
alliances usually aren't as strong as the cliques, til the clique goes 
too far and then the un-allied and more loosely allied join them, and 
you have revolution. *GGTF and this email list have enough malcontents 
to threaten the power of the controlling male-dominated cliques. Thus 
the massive over-reaction to GGTF.*


I haven't studied the Wikimedia Foundation enough yet, or its more 
unpopular in

Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?


On 12/10/2014 12:47 PM, Nathan wrote:
> No, nothing described below constitutes fraud of any kind.

On 12/10/2014 1:01 PM, regu...@gmail.com wrote:


That depends on how you interpret it. No monetary gain was there but 
they a r e userping someones identity for personal gain.




How do you know?

For example, maybe there are secretly for profit, paid editors
on Wikipedia who feel threatened by more Admin and/or
Foundation scrutiny of the kind that some editors have
been promoting, sometimes for years.

GGTF has too many snoopy, boat rocking editors.
Getting rid of such editors allows them to continue to make
money without pesky snoops. If faking IPs helps discredit those
editors and get them blocked, so they can continue their
secret paid editing, that's fraud.

Or maybe someone who doesn't like GGTF or Lightbreather
paid someone $50 to fake the IP and Lightbreather-like
comments in order to cover their tracks.

Maybe there's someone making a good living faking
3 or 4 IPs a week in some topic area where some
organization wants to discredit some BLPs or
companies or even a whole nation.  So they flood
the topic area with socks from phony IPs
and then it's easy to claim new editors are socks
and get rid of them before they can learn
the ropes and deal with POV edits.

I'm sure there are all sorts of more examples
of what might be happening we could come up with.

 So don't claim there is no fraud when there could
be fraud going on...

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

Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

That depends on how you interpret it. No monetary gain was there but they a r e 
userping someones identity for personal gain.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device

-- Original message--
From: Nathan
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 12:49 PM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation 
of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

No, nothing described below constitutes fraud of any kind.  

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Carol Moore dc  
wrote:
Let's just call it what it is - internet fraud...

On 12/10/2014 12:02 PM, regu...@gmail.com wrote:
That is joe jobbing.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device

-- Original message--
From: LB
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:58 AM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation 
of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

Is there a term (like "joe job") for when someone pretends to be you to get you 
into trouble? In my case, after I'd already been blocked for a week, an IP 
address deleted some info that I'd asked to have revdeled. It's possible it was 
someone who thought they were helping me, but it's also possible - maybe 
probable - that someone did it maliciously so an admin would think I was 
dodging my block.

Lightbreather

___
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] a gender gap meet-up?

2014-12-10 Thread Nathan

No, nothing described below constitutes fraud of any kind.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:42 PM, Carol Moore dc 
wrote:

>  Let's just call it what it is - internet fraud...
>
> On 12/10/2014 12:02 PM, regu...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>  That is joe jobbing.
>
>
>
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original message--
>
> *From: *LB
>
> *Date: *Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:58 AM
>
> *To: *Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
> participation of women within Wikimedia projects.;
>
> *Subject:*Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?
>
>
> Is there a term (like "joe job") for when someone pretends to be you to
> get you into trouble? In my case, after I'd already been blocked for a
> week, an IP address deleted some info
> 
> that I'd asked to have revdeled. It's *possible* it was someone who
> thought they were helping me, but it's also possible - maybe probable -
> that someone did it maliciously so an admin would think I was dodging my
> block.
>
>
>  Lightbreather
>
>
>
> ___
> 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] a gender gap meet-up?


Let's just call it what it is - internet fraud...

On 12/10/2014 12:02 PM, regu...@gmail.com wrote:


That is joe jobbing.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device

-- Original message--

*From: *LB

*Date: *Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:58 AM

*To: *Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the 
participation of women within Wikimedia projects.;


*Subject:*Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

Is there a term (like "joe job") for when someone pretends to be you 
to get you into trouble? In my case, after I'd already been blocked 
for a week, an IP address deleted some info 
 
that I'd asked to have revdeled. It's /possible/ it was someone who 
thought they were helping me, but it's also possible - maybe probable 
- that someone did it maliciously so an admin would think I was 
dodging my block.



Lightbreather



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

Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

That is joe jobbing.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device

-- Original message--
From: LB
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 11:58 AM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation 
of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

Is there a term (like "joe job") for when someone pretends to be you to get you 
into trouble? In my case, after I'd already been blocked for a week, an IP 
address deleted some info that I'd asked to have revdeled. It's possible it was 
someone who thought they were helping me, but it's also possible - maybe 
probable - that someone did it maliciously so an admin would think I was 
dodging my block.

Lightbreather

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Fæ  wrote:
See . This was a targeted attack
on Russavia by someone deliberately pretending to be them.

It's a malicious form of attack intended to have Wikimedians take
action on each other in error in order to cause disruption. With more
sophisticated spoofing going on it is something we all need to stay
aware of.

Fae

On 10 December 2014 at 15:32, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
> Russavia claims he did not start it.
> On Dec 10, 2014 6:09 AM, "regu...@gmail.com"  wrote:
...
>> Also in re gards to the google group that russavia started. I think that
>> was done in good faith to allow a more interactive venue where people could
>> chat more real time rather than in a moderated email list. So i wouldnt get
>> too upset about the invitations to it even though some folks dont like him.
>> I think hes just trying to be helpful.

___
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] a gender gap meet-up?

2014-12-10 Thread LB

Is there a term (like "joe job") for when someone pretends to be you to get
you into trouble? In my case, after I'd already been blocked for a week, an
IP address deleted some info

that I'd asked to have revdeled. It's *possible* it was someone who thought
they were helping me, but it's also possible - maybe probable - that
someone did it maliciously so an admin would think I was dodging my block.


Lightbreather

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:57 AM, Fæ  wrote:

> See . This was a targeted attack
> on Russavia by someone deliberately pretending to be them.
>
> It's a malicious form of attack intended to have Wikimedians take
> action on each other in error in order to cause disruption. With more
> sophisticated spoofing going on it is something we all need to stay
> aware of.
>
> Fae
>
> On 10 December 2014 at 15:32, Sarah Stierch 
> wrote:
> > Russavia claims he did not start it.
> > On Dec 10, 2014 6:09 AM, "regu...@gmail.com"  wrote:
> ...
> >> Also in re gards to the google group that russavia started. I think that
> >> was done in good faith to allow a more interactive venue where people
> could
> >> chat more real time rather than in a moderated email list. So i wouldnt
> get
> >> too upset about the invitations to it even though some folks dont like
> him.
> >> I think hes just trying to be helpful.
>
> ___
> 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] Moving forward

i take the point that arbcom is overrated
we see how difficult it is for them to enforce even site bans as in the
case of betacommand

and the point that it takes away from talking about image uploads or
infoboxes at editathons.
it is optimistic to imagine that we can train newbies to get to 150 edits,
and then show up for voting 6 months later.

however, we need to move from outrage, to plan, to action.
low turnout provides a mechanism where we can gain control of what levers
there are, aside from our civil community circles.

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Sarah Stierch 
wrote:

> I agree with all Jim says here. I also think the incentive of regular
> editing is too low - why hangout on Wikipedia after a long day at work or
> school or caring for a child when you can space out with Netflix or do
> something with more incentive (I am knee deep in Wikidata right nowand
> have written more Yelp reviews than I have Wikipedia articles this
> yearwith yelp I have elite status and get to go to free parties with
> free food and booze..and no one yells at me for typos)
>
> But I have been saying the same crap for 4 years now. So this broken
> record will go back to her open data sets...
>
> :-)
>
> Sarah
> On Dec 10, 2014 6:08 AM, "Jim Hayes"  wrote:
>
>> there is a lack of continuity studying editing behaviors,
>> it is all one-off studies, not longitudinal
>> they only know "editor decline" because it's an easy data dump.
>> that said, there is some data from editations being gathered by eval &
>> testing group.
>>
>> we fund editathons because the primary goal is institutional engagement,
>> not editor training. we do the training, because editing is a barrier to
>> entry, (learning curve is too hard)
>> a process with a 1% yield may need to be reinforced, since no process =
>> 0% yield.
>> there needs to be a culture change, beyond the "editors are a a dime a
>> dozen"
>> we can not rely on self-starters to become productive; the rate is not
>> large enough to replace the leaving editors. too much needs to be done, for
>> the existing numbers
>>
>> until there is a change to the bitey culture, newbies will stay away, or
>> not edit except at editathons.
>> until then, we can organize circles of civility, and provide some
>> positive reinforcement.
>> we need to develop norms that may be outside of wiki process, i.e. no
>> AfC, and push those that work, VE, teahouse, off wiki organization.
>>
>> arbcom or WMF, are now saying the right words, but do not have a plan or
>> the will to implement. the GGTF case tends to undermine the credibility of
>> arbcom.
>>
>> slow
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Sarah Stierch 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Just a gentle reminder..that the work we did evaluating edit-a-thons and
>>> workshops when I worked at WMF showed that they do not retain new
>>> editors.[1]
>>>
>>> They're good for getting people aware about Wikipedia - and people do
>>> edit while they are at the event, but, newer editors rarely edit AFTER the
>>> event, that is until the next event happensso they aren't probably the
>>> magic way to solve the gender gap. Even those that involve academics, etc.
>>> I even evaluated my own edit-a-thons that I had implemented and saw the
>>> same trend, much to my dismay.
>>>
>>> However, providing quality mechanisms of education, outreach, and help
>>> can. We see that with the Teahouse.
>>>
>>> WMF told me a while ago they weren't going to invest in surveys,
>>> programming, etc and that it was up to the chapters and the "community" to
>>> take the initiative and be proactive. That was one of the biggest
>>> challenges of my fellowship - while I worked on two successful projects
>>> (Teahouse/WWC) and am very proud to have done that, I was really sad that
>>> more research and direct outreach was not going to be implemented. I've
>>> said it before and I'll say it again - I was broken hearted that I wasn't
>>> going to do more direct outreach to groups, institutions, and so forth. If
>>> we were able to make womencentric/diversity events part of institutional
>>> change internationally I think we could have seen a larger impact - like
>>> what GLAM-Wiki did. People go around and preach the gospel internationally
>>> and now GLAM-Wiki is almost old news.. lots of people are doing it...
>>>
>>> (Of course, WMF now invests in surveys and so forth via the Individual
>>> Engagement Grants)
>>>
>>> I wonder if having a chapter implement a survey for a specific language
>>> Wikipedia or something would work? When I did my 2011 survey I did it on my
>>> own, without asking anyone's permission. Now it seems everyone wants to
>>> control who investigates what, but, being a community member helped - I'm
>>> not some scientist from outside trying to put a microscope on a bunch of
>>> Wikipedians...because I am one.
>>>
>>> But, these ongoing mass-improvement and participatory projects by women
>>> come and go based on the month ("oh it's women' history month...get o

Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

Thanks, i take back everything i said. I have never more wrong. I have since 
found out that isnt russavia nor do i beli leve that group was started in good 
faith. I have since remived myself from it.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device

-- Original message--
From: Sarah Stierch
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 10:32 AM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation 
of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

Russavia claims he did not start it.
On Dec 10, 2014 6:09 AM, "regu...@gmail.com"  wrote:
A few of us live in the dc area as well.

Also in re gards to the google group that russavia started. I think that was 
done in good faith to allow a more interactive venue where people could chat 
more real time rather than in a moderated email list. So i wouldnt get too 
upset about the invitations to it even though some folks dont like him. I think 
hes just trying to be helpful.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device

-- Original message--
From: Lennart Guldbrandsson
Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2014 6:08 AM
To: Gendergap;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

I think that's a great idea, and I would love to come, but it's a long way from 
Sweden :-/

Best wishes,

Lennart Guldbrandsson

070 - 207 80 05
http://www.elementx.se - arbete
http://www.mrchapel.wordpress.com - personlig blogg
Presentation
@aliasHannibal - på Twitter

"Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till 
världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål."
Jimmy Wales

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 02:07:51 -0800
From: rkald...@wikimedia.org
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

Does anyone else feel like it might be time for a gender gap meet-up? I love 
the mailing list, but it's such a limited (and formal) means of communication. 
I'm curious what kind of ideas and discussion would come from an in-person get 
together. I know several of the people on this list are in the Bay Area, so 
maybe we could put something together in San Francisco or Oakland. Does this 
sound like an interesting idea to anyone?

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

Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

2014-12-10 Thread Fæ

See . This was a targeted attack
on Russavia by someone deliberately pretending to be them.

It's a malicious form of attack intended to have Wikimedians take
action on each other in error in order to cause disruption. With more
sophisticated spoofing going on it is something we all need to stay
aware of.

Fae

On 10 December 2014 at 15:32, Sarah Stierch  wrote:
> Russavia claims he did not start it.
> On Dec 10, 2014 6:09 AM, "regu...@gmail.com"  wrote:
...
>> Also in re gards to the google group that russavia started. I think that
>> was done in good faith to allow a more interactive venue where people could
>> chat more real time rather than in a moderated email list. So i wouldnt get
>> too upset about the invitations to it even though some folks dont like him.
>> I think hes just trying to be helpful.

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

Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

Russavia claims he did not start it.
On Dec 10, 2014 6:09 AM, "regu...@gmail.com"  wrote:

>  A few of us live in the dc area as well.
>
>
>
> Also in re gards to the google group that russavia started. I think that
> was done in good faith to allow a more interactive venue where people could
> chat more real time rather than in a moderated email list. So i wouldnt get
> too upset about the invitations to it even though some folks dont like him.
> I think hes just trying to be helpful.
>
>
>
> Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device
>
>
>
>
>
> -- Original message--
>
> *From: *Lennart Guldbrandsson
>
> *Date: *Mon, Dec 1, 2014 6:08 AM
>
> *To: *Gendergap;
>
> *Subject:*Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?
>
>
> I think that's a great idea, and I would love to come, but it's a long way
> from Sweden :-/
>
>
> Best wishes,
>
> Lennart Guldbrandsson
>
> 070 - 207 80 05
> http://www.elementx.se - arbete
> http://www.mrchapel.wordpress.com - personlig blogg
> Presentation 
> @aliasHannibal  - på Twitter
>
> "*Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri
> tillgång till **världens samlade kunskap*
> *. Det är vårt mål.*"
> Jimmy Wales
>
> --
> Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 02:07:51 -0800
> From: rkald...@wikimedia.org
> To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> Subject: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?
>
> Does anyone else feel like it might be time for a gender gap meet-up? I
> love the mailing list, but it's such a limited (and formal) means of
> communication. I'm curious what kind of ideas and discussion would come
> from an in-person get together. I know several of the people on this list
> are in the Bay Area, so maybe we could put something together in San
> Francisco or Oakland. Does this sound like an interesting idea to anyone?
>
> 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

Re: [Gendergap] Moving forward

I agree with all Jim says here. I also think the incentive of regular
editing is too low - why hangout on Wikipedia after a long day at work or
school or caring for a child when you can space out with Netflix or do
something with more incentive (I am knee deep in Wikidata right nowand
have written more Yelp reviews than I have Wikipedia articles this
yearwith yelp I have elite status and get to go to free parties with
free food and booze..and no one yells at me for typos)

But I have been saying the same crap for 4 years now. So this broken record
will go back to her open data sets...

:-)

Sarah
On Dec 10, 2014 6:08 AM, "Jim Hayes"  wrote:

> there is a lack of continuity studying editing behaviors,
> it is all one-off studies, not longitudinal
> they only know "editor decline" because it's an easy data dump.
> that said, there is some data from editations being gathered by eval &
> testing group.
>
> we fund editathons because the primary goal is institutional engagement,
> not editor training. we do the training, because editing is a barrier to
> entry, (learning curve is too hard)
> a process with a 1% yield may need to be reinforced, since no process = 0%
> yield.
> there needs to be a culture change, beyond the "editors are a a dime a
> dozen"
> we can not rely on self-starters to become productive; the rate is not
> large enough to replace the leaving editors. too much needs to be done, for
> the existing numbers
>
> until there is a change to the bitey culture, newbies will stay away, or
> not edit except at editathons.
> until then, we can organize circles of civility, and provide some positive
> reinforcement.
> we need to develop norms that may be outside of wiki process, i.e. no AfC,
> and push those that work, VE, teahouse, off wiki organization.
>
> arbcom or WMF, are now saying the right words, but do not have a plan or
> the will to implement. the GGTF case tends to undermine the credibility of
> arbcom.
>
> slow
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Sarah Stierch 
> wrote:
>
>> Just a gentle reminder..that the work we did evaluating edit-a-thons and
>> workshops when I worked at WMF showed that they do not retain new
>> editors.[1]
>>
>> They're good for getting people aware about Wikipedia - and people do
>> edit while they are at the event, but, newer editors rarely edit AFTER the
>> event, that is until the next event happensso they aren't probably the
>> magic way to solve the gender gap. Even those that involve academics, etc.
>> I even evaluated my own edit-a-thons that I had implemented and saw the
>> same trend, much to my dismay.
>>
>> However, providing quality mechanisms of education, outreach, and help
>> can. We see that with the Teahouse.
>>
>> WMF told me a while ago they weren't going to invest in surveys,
>> programming, etc and that it was up to the chapters and the "community" to
>> take the initiative and be proactive. That was one of the biggest
>> challenges of my fellowship - while I worked on two successful projects
>> (Teahouse/WWC) and am very proud to have done that, I was really sad that
>> more research and direct outreach was not going to be implemented. I've
>> said it before and I'll say it again - I was broken hearted that I wasn't
>> going to do more direct outreach to groups, institutions, and so forth. If
>> we were able to make womencentric/diversity events part of institutional
>> change internationally I think we could have seen a larger impact - like
>> what GLAM-Wiki did. People go around and preach the gospel internationally
>> and now GLAM-Wiki is almost old news.. lots of people are doing it...
>>
>> (Of course, WMF now invests in surveys and so forth via the Individual
>> Engagement Grants)
>>
>> I wonder if having a chapter implement a survey for a specific language
>> Wikipedia or something would work? When I did my 2011 survey I did it on my
>> own, without asking anyone's permission. Now it seems everyone wants to
>> control who investigates what, but, being a community member helped - I'm
>> not some scientist from outside trying to put a microscope on a bunch of
>> Wikipedians...because I am one.
>>
>> But, these ongoing mass-improvement and participatory projects by women
>> come and go based on the month ("oh it's women' history month...get out the
>> laptops and snacks!") and who is organizing. It's becoming more common -
>> but, we still aren't hearing about women getting together or lot lots of
>> women regularly editing. I still believe, based on Sue's thoughts, that not
>> every woman is going to want to edit Wikipedia on a regular basis outside
>> an event - just like not every man will. Some humans just aren't built to
>> enjoy it like we all do...
>>
>> Sarah
>>
>> [1]
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2013/Edit-a-thons
>> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Case_studies/WWHM
>>
>> -Sarah
>>
>> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Tim Davenport 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

I bet the majority of people 1) have no clue what arbcom is 2) probably
don't care much if they do because most people won't end up there

So someone will surely have to invest a lot of time and money in educating
a lot of people who only edit occasionally about Arbcom.

I have been editing Wikipedia for 8 years and I don't even think I have
voted in those elections.

Sarah
On Dec 10, 2014 6:10 AM, "Jim Hayes"  wrote:

> one take away is how few voters there are.
>
> we have a lot of feminist editathons coming up
> should we consider recruiting at events to get new editors over 150 edits,
> with a view of block voting in next year's election?
>
> if we organize now, we could run a civility slate of candidates.
>
> On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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

I totally disagree. Arbco. Decisions have a huge impact on the community even 
if the majority of the community doesnt see it. Since you mention discretionary 
sanctions, that is an area where i have seen abused many times. Some admins who 
like power frequently hide behind ds's and use them as a means to get rid of 
editor they dont like. They are too broad, too discretionary and too "broadlt 
construed". It makes them open to abuse in a project where its nearly 
impossible to remove the tools from even the most abusive admin.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device


-- Original message--
From: Risker
Date: Wed, Dec 10, 2014 9:43 AM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation 
of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election





On 9 December 2014 at 09:37, Jim Hayes  wrote:
one take away is how few voters there are.

we have a lot of feminist editathons coming up
should we consider recruiting at events to get new editors over 150 edits,
with a view of block voting in next year's election?

if we organize now, we could run a civility slate of candidates.


Slates are specifically banned from arbcom elections. The majority of 
candidates who are running this year (and the past several years, for that 
matter) have stated they were very pro-civility. However, I'm not sure that it 
makes a difference, since Arbcom decisions and actions have so little impact on 
the project as a whole. Aside from actions against individual editors (i.e., 
banning or otherwise sanctioning individuals), pretty much everything else they 
"decide" has to be implemented by the broader community, and the committee has 
no way to leverage these things. Better than half the time when Arbcom asks the 
community to review certain things, it's ignored; discretionary sanctions are 
entirely based on who is willing to risk the boomerang effect of reporting 
someone at the DS noticeboard; and there is no apparent willingness of the 
community to proactively address these issues.

Again, I think you're caught in the trap of believing Arbcom has more power and 
authority than it really has.  

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

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

2014-12-10 Thread Risker

On 9 December 2014 at 09:37, Jim Hayes  wrote:

> one take away is how few voters there are.
>
> we have a lot of feminist editathons coming up
> should we consider recruiting at events to get new editors over 150 edits,
> with a view of block voting in next year's election?
>
> if we organize now, we could run a civility slate of candidates.
>
>

Slates are specifically banned from arbcom elections. The majority of
candidates who are running this year (and the past several years, for that
matter) have stated they were very pro-civility. However, I'm not sure that
it makes a difference, since Arbcom decisions and actions have so little
impact on the project as a whole. Aside from actions against individual
editors (i.e., banning or otherwise sanctioning individuals), pretty much
everything else they "decide" has to be implemented by the broader
community, and the committee has no way to leverage these things. Better
than half the time when Arbcom asks the community to review certain things,
it's ignored; discretionary sanctions are entirely based on who is willing
to risk the boomerang effect of reporting someone at the DS noticeboard;
and there is no apparent willingness of the community to proactively
address these issues.
Again, I think you're caught in the trap of believing Arbcom has more power
and authority than it really has.

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

Re: [Gendergap] Warning: Email thread hijacking

2014-12-10 Thread Kevin Gorman

It's worth additionally noting that as far as I can tell Russia Aviation is
associated with a real-world group that has previously doxxed editors with
severe consequences, and has a specific agenda that has nothing to do with
gender gap issues.  I'm keeping them off the list as best I can, but have
been a bit MIA for the last week and a half.

Best,
Kevin Gorman

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 3:13 PM, marinka marinkavandam.com <
mari...@marinkavandam.com> wrote:

>  Yes, I've been inconvenienced by this group too. I've already reported
> them as "spam" to Google and have warned them if they bother me again I
> shall report them to Google abuse. This Russian Aviatiion character went as
> far as to analyze the Google Analytics code on my personal website, in a
> bid it seems to associate me with the sex trade in Indonesia, *gek* eh? I
> have informed the relevant authorities in Indonesia ... :).
>
> Huge fan of yours, Fae. Keep on trucking.
>
> Marinka (a pseudonym)
>
> On December 9, 2014 at 2:10 PM Fæ  wrote:
>
>
> 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
>
>
> ___
> 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] Warning: Email thread hijacking

Yes, I've been inconvenienced by this group too. I've already reported them as "spam" to Google and have warned them if they bother me again I shall report them to Google abuse. This Russian Aviatiion character went as far as to analyze the Google Analytics code on my personal website, in a bid it seems to associate me with the sex trade in Indonesia, gek eh? I have informed the relevant authorities in Indonesia ... :).
Huge fan of yours, Fae. Keep on trucking.
Marinka (a pseudonym)

On December 9, 2014 at 2:10 PM Fæ wrote:Please take care when emailing replies to any inflammatory appearingemails to the list. You may be receiving emails with identical subjectlines which are from a googlegroup rather than from a Wikimedia listwhich will appear to be in the same email thread. An example has beenthe discussion about the Arbcom election which even includes emailbodies from the gendergap list in order to fool users.Checking the details will show "@googlegroups.com" in the from fieldand in the footer or names such as "Russia Aviation", thought theseare likely to keep changing.Unfortunately despite multiple complaints about this group hijackingusers 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 listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

I totally agree that the arbcom has lost the interest of most of the community 
and that there used to be more candidates and more voters. I believe this is 
reflected in a combination of the drop in editors, the drop in admins and in 
the progressively worse job the arbcom is doing. The take very few cases these 
days and they always seem to make the worst possible decision that avoids 
making an actual decision on the issue and leaves both sides losing. 

In general, the arbcom has outlived its usefullness and the low votes help 
reflect that.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device


-- Original message--
From: Risker
Date: Tue, Dec 9, 2014 11:20 AM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation 
of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

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

Re: [Gendergap] We Are Wikipedia

Good luck sarah, im afraid i wouldnt have much positive to say about wikipedia 
on twitter these days.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device

-- Original message--
From: Sarah Stierch
Date: Sun, Dec 7, 2014 3:11 PM
To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participation 
of women within Wikimedia projects.;
Subject:[Gendergap] We Are Wikipedia

I'm tweeting about wiki and open access stuff via the We Are Wikipedia Twitter 
account this upcoming week (starting later tonight/tomorrow morning). 

You can follow it here:

https://twitter.com/WeAreWikipedia

--
Sarah Stierch
www.sarahstierch.com___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] How to vote today?

Nope thats about it. The only other possibi k ity would be to ask in irc but 
thats a lingshort.

Reguyla

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device


-- Original message--
From: LB
Date: Sun, Dec 7, 2014 2:22 PM
To: Gender gap mailing list;
Subject:[Gendergap] How to vote today?

I have been trying to get a block lifted for a week now, but my request is at a 
critical point today - as I'd like to vote at WP:ACE.

I have tried the unblock and Admin help templates on my talk page, the UTRS 
ticket system, and direct appeals to involved admins. Any suggestions?

For details, see: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lightbreather#Request_to_remove_1-week_unblock_extension

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lightbreather#Question_for_administrator

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

Re: [Gendergap] Relevant election questions for Arbcom

Unfortunately some made sure that i couldnt vote this year, partly because i 
was an outspoken critic of the incompetence of arbcom. There are several i 
would have supported and opposed.

Its also worth noting that the only openly gay candidate has been the subject 
of some pretty viscious attacks by Fram at ani.

Reguyla

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device

-- Original message--
From: Fæ
Date: Sun, Dec 7, 2014 9:04 AM
To: GenderGap;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] Relevant election questions for Arbcom

Following up on this, after my question a week ago to Arbcom
candidates, it is now clear that there are *no* women standing for
election to Arbcom this year who are prepared to say they are a woman.
There is one openly non-heterosexual candidate standing, though the
candidate guides make it look unlikely he will get elected. The
feedback to my question seems to be that the majority do not
understand why a lack of open candidates might be perceived as an
issue, in fact in several places this has been interpreted as a threat
against anonymity and even been dismissed as trolling.

I corrected my comments at
.

Don't forget, today is the last day you can vote and make a difference
to who will be on English Wikipedia's Arbcom next year. :-)

Fae

On 1 December 2014 at 19:24, Fæ  wrote:
>
> On 1 Dec 2014 19:15, "Nathan"  wrote:
>> I'm not sure I love the idea of asking people to identify with a gender or
>> sexuality when they haven't done so already. If they have already done so,
>> then the question is superfluous. Better to ask them their position on the
>> actual issue, and if they think there is anything arbcom or the project as a
>> whole can do better.
>
> I understand that POV, however with only one woman candidate my question was
> deliberate. The de facto 'don't ask don't tell' policy is a poor excuse for
> failing properly to address the hostility that some of our contributors who
> are open about their gender or orientation have experienced.
>
> We should not have to be forced into the closet to edit Wikipedia, and if
> Arbcom members fear to be open, what hope is there for everyone else?
>
> Fae
>
>> On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 11:45 AM, Fæ  wrote:
>>>
>>> In the light of the contentious Gender Gap Task Force case, I have
>>> raised the following question for candidates in the current election:
>>> "I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the
>>> diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a
>>> woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would
>>> bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of
>>> dispute?"
>>>
>>> I will be voting for women and open LGBT candidates that bring some
>>> relevant and diverse life experience to committee, and against
>>> everyone else. I am sure they will get enough votes from the majority

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

Re: [Gendergap] Arbcom election

one take away is how few voters there are.

we have a lot of feminist editathons coming up
should we consider recruiting at events to get new editors over 150 edits,
with a view of block voting in next year's election?

if we organize now, we could run a civility slate of candidates.

On Tue, Dec 9, 2014 at 9:08 AM, Fæ  wrote:

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

Re: [Gendergap] Moving forward

2014-12-10 Thread Reguyla

Now that the Arbcom case has concluded and the punishments have been
imposed, I just wanted to welcome Carolmooredc and Neotarf to the list of
editors who have been banned from Wikipedia. I now its a hard pill to
swallow, but all good editors end up here eventually if they stay long
enough, so welcome to the club.

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

> For the record: the percentage of female editors on the Dutch Wikipedia is
> only 6%. In the Netherlands, edit-a-thons seem to be useless in terms of
> recruitment vehicles and many long-term Wikipedians seem to have a
> long-tail interest that they tend to spend most of their time editing.
>
> The "eternal limbo of rejection" at the articles for creation queues is
> thankfully not a problem anywhere except the English Wikipedia. I don't
> think any other Wikipedia has anything like AfC, and I am continually
> surprised to see it hasn't been stopped yet on the English Wikipedia, where
> I believe it does way more harm than good.
>
> The Dutch Wikipedia does suffer from an overwhelmingly confusing set of
> policies that only seem to make sense to a tiny committee of editors that
> have been on board since about 2005. No one has ever felt that anything
> more is necessary to explain them than the policy pages themselves, which
> are a confusing mess of contradictions.
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Tim Davenport  wrote:
>
>> In reply to Kerry Raymond's post...
>>
>>
>> QUANTIFICATION
>>
>> If "all the studies on female participation come up with low percentages
>> around 10%" but there are anecdotes of a significant undercount from
>> Teahouse volunteers and such and if female participation at Wikimania
>> approaches one-third, would that not seem to fortify my point that there is
>> a need for reexamination of the magnitude of the gender gap? What is the
>> exact magnitude of the female undercount (or the male overcount)?
>>
>> This does not even bring up the matter of dynamics — is the gender
>> disparity changing over time, and if so, which direction is it moving?
>>
>> There is only one way to find this out: study, study, study, survey,
>> survey, survey...
>>
>> That WMF has its own editor gender data from 2012 that it is not
>> releasing, as has been intimated, is annoying. Still: why is the GGTF
>> waiting for San Francisco at all? Why is quantification and surveying not a
>> vital part of the task force's mission?
>>
>> That there is an editorial gender gap is beyond dispute. But how big is
>> it really and how is it changing over time?
>>
>>
>> PROACTIVE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
>>
>> So if edit-a-thons don't work, as you indicate, why is the WMF still
>> spending money on them? Is it mere symbolism?
>>
>> I have noted from working with a college class at WP that short-term
>> class assignments don't seem to create long-term Wikipedians. Students
>> being students, they slam out the minimum required right before deadline
>> and move along with their lives. I don't know what does create long-term
>> content people, other than a passion about SOMETHING and a desire to share
>> the information. Vandal fighters and quality control people may have a
>> different motivation.
>>
>> Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that there is NOTHING that
>> can be done proactively to pick the needles out of the haystack — that it
>> is impossible for any bureaucratic entity to identify and activate the
>> small fraction of 1% of people that will eventually become long-term
>> Wikipedia volunteers.
>>
>> This would mean that the "needles" are going to self-identify by
>> registering at WP and beginning work under their own volition. Therefore,
>> logically, primary attention should be focused on identifying and
>> cultivating "new editors" every day, nurturing the newbies as they start to
>> navigate the technical and cultural learning curves. In which case, Ms.
>> Stierch's "Teahouse" concept is 100% right on the money.
>>
>> And that's where the gender gap can be addressed, by making sure that
>> every effort is made to teach and acclimate female newcomers in particular.
>>
>> As for edit-a-thons and outreach recruiting, I personally believe that
>> any recruitment that is not focused on teachers and academics will probably
>> not produce lasting results. I'm also pretty well convinced that long term
>> Wikipedians are made one at a time.
>>
>> Tim Davenport
>> "Carrite" on WP
>> Corvallis, OR
>>
>>
>>
>> =
>>
>> Kerry Raymond wrote:
>>
>> A.   All the studies on female participation come up with low percentages
>> around 10% plus or minus a few percent. Of course, it is possible that in
>> all of the studies the women are choosing not to self-identify. It is an
>> inherent difficulty in any study if people choose to not reveal information.
>> But we know women make up large proportions of social media users, so if
>> women’s participation in Wikipedia is actually higher than studies show due
>> to reluctance to self-identify, i

Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

Dodbot has been down for a long time. I think the only assessment bots are run 
be either anomie, magioladitis and possibly going batty.

I would suggest manually verifying the subcats before assessing. Often time the 
subcats arent intuitive.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device


-- Original message--
From: Marie Earley
Date: Sun, Nov 30, 2014 6:32 PM
To: Gender Gap;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

Thanks Sarah,

Yes, they does seem to be a lot more of it lately. I also thought that 
discussion board stuff would die down. They got their pound of flesh and now 
they seem to want blood as well.

I pretty much stayed off the boards but I was drawn in by a "Hey-let's-move-on" 
style opening post which just turned out to be a red herring.

Anyway, before all this kicked off I was looking at bots that do 
autoassessments, in particular 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DodoBot/Requests

It works like this:
* Create a page called - Wikipedia:WikiProject Gender Studies/Categories
* On the page that just been created, list the sub-categories that are of 
interest to the project, e.g. the way that the Toronto project has done here, 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Toronto/Categories
* If the sub-categories have their own sub-categories, and you want to capture 
all of them then add (Depth:Inf) or to the 'depth' of sub-category that you 
want to go e.g. (Depth:2)
* You can also assign how important you want those articles in that 
sub-category to be labelled, for example Category: Gender and entertainment 
(Depth:Inf) (Importance:Mid)
- will result in all the articles in the category 'Gender and entertainment', 
and all the articles in the sub-categories (and the sub-categories of the 
sub-categories of 'Gender and entertainment' to infinity) being labelled 'mid 
importance'.

Depth explained a bit better:
* Category:Gender and entertainment
* Category:Feminism and the arts - (depth level = 1)
* Category:Feminist films - (depth level = 2)
* Category:Studio Ghibli - (depth level = 3)
* Category:Studio Ghibli animated films - (depth level = 4)

* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:2) will include all the articles in 
the categories - Gender and entertainment; Feminism and the arts; Feminist films

* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:3) will include all the articles in 
the categories - Gender and entertainment; Feminism and the arts; Feminist 
films AND Studio Ghibli

* Category: Gender and entertainment (Depth:Inf) will include all the articles 
in the category - Gender and entertainment AND all the lower levels, including 
any new sub-categories created for the Category:Studio Ghibli animated films or 
lower, such as Category:Studio Ghibli animated films X (depth level = 5), 
Category:Studio Ghibli animated films X1 (depth level = 6) ... etc. to an 
infinite depth.

But before you can do any of that you have to get consensus from the project 
participants on the categories that you want labelling Top, Mid, Low 
importance. That's the tricky bit.

I don't mind setting up the page and creating a provisional list probably based 
on existing assessments, but then it will have to go to discussion.

Marie

 
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 2014 14:32:17 -0700
From: slimvir...@gmail.com
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] What's happening at ArbCom re WP:GGTF

On Sun, Nov 30, 2014 at 2:06 PM, Marie Earley  wrote:
In answer to your other questions:
* Please explain why this is relevant to the gender gap, since you are sending 
it out to everyone on the gender gap mailing list?
- Please explain why you think it isn't relevant, since the opening link in my 
last post (and given again above) is to GGTF's talk page?
* [Explain] why a minor content dispute on enwiki is relevant to the Wikimedia 
gender gap community as a whole?
- Because it it provides a telling snap-shop

Marie

 

Hi Marie, your post was interesting and on-topic. Please don't be discouraged 
from letting us know about these issues. They have been happening a lot and 
seem to be increasing.

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] Gendergap achievement award (Second try)

wikimedia dc gave out some awards
(no money involved, plaque)
https://www.facebook.com/wikimediadc

i'm sure Keilana could be prevailed upon
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keilana

i was trying to test a ribbon and barnstar (re-gifted from mindspillage)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kristin_anderson_6293319.JPG

slow

On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 2:51 PM, Nathan  wrote:

> I was thinking of something maybe a little more formal and prestigious,
> like a monetary award with a plaque, and a small committee reviewing
> nominations to select a recipient. Never underestimate the power a formal
> award has to both confer a sense of legitimacy and raise awareness of an
> issue. I'd be willing to donate to the funding of such an award, if a
> chapter or user group could be found to administer it.
>
> ___
> 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] a gender gap meet-up?

A few of us live in the dc area as well.

Also in re gards to the google group that russavia started. I think that was 
done in good faith to allow a more interactive venue where people could chat 
more real time rather than in a moderated email list. So i wouldnt get too 
upset about the invitations to it even though some folks dont like him. I think 
hes just trying to be helpful.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device


-- Original message--
From: Lennart Guldbrandsson
Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2014 6:08 AM
To: Gendergap;
Subject:Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

I think that's a great idea, and I would love to come, but it's a long way from 
Sweden :-/


Best wishes,

Lennart Guldbrandsson

070 - 207 80 05
http://www.elementx.se - arbete
http://www.mrchapel.wordpress.com - personlig blogg
Presentation
@aliasHannibal - på Twitter

"Tänk dig en värld där varje människa på den här planeten får fri tillgång till 
världens samlade kunskap. Det är vårt mål."
Jimmy Wales

 
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 2014 02:07:51 -0800
From: rkald...@wikimedia.org
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?

Does anyone else feel like it might be time for a gender gap meet-up? I love 
the mailing list, but it's such a limited (and formal) means of communication. 
I'm curious what kind of ideas and discussion would come from an in-person get 
together. I know several of the people on this list are in the Bay Area, so 
maybe we could put something together in San Francisco or Oakland. Does this 
sound like an interesting idea to anyone?

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

Re: [Gendergap] [Gendergap-I] GGTF interactions arbcom case has now closed

Just making the boundaries clear I expect, as one has to do with adolescents and such as the Manchester Circle chapter of Wikipedia ...
Here's an example of harassment that was flung my way yesterday. I have an account at acadmia.edu https://vam.academia.edu/MarinkavanDam. It is openly discussed by the Machester Circle, who took exception to my editing on my Wikipedia account as Marinka van Dam, on their Talk pages. Yesterday this account https://vam.academia.edu/PaulvanDam was created with the sole intention it seems of following me (of course I blocked it). The photo is of Reinhard Heydrich, architect of the Jewish Holocaust. Note the "research interest", Nihonto (Japanese swords and other weaponry). I've asked academia.edu to report it to the police, failing which I shall deal with it myself.
Marinka

On December 4, 2014 at 3:23 PM Carol Moore dc wrote:On 12/4/2014 3:41 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:> The URL I just posted goes to the wrong survey (since there are two > sections with the same header on that page). Here is a better URL:> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Civility#Arbcom.27s_position_on_expletives>They are discussing whether to make this GGTF ArbCom statement part of civility:"Although there are cultural differences in the use of certain expletives, there is rarely any need to use such language on Wikipedia and so they should be avoided. Editors who know, or are told, that a specific word usage is reasonably understood as offensive by other Wikipedians should refrain from using that word or usage, unless there is a specific and legitimate reason for doing so in a particular instance."I really didn't pay much attention to this at the time, I'm afraid, but see several issues:*Expletives generally are more like Shit, damn, hell, bloody, F*cking this that or the other, etc. There can be some leeway with those on user talk pages and even talk page conversations, if not used in a direct attack.*Slurs (generally against whole group of people) - in this case C*nt and Tw*t - were the words most objected to in this arbitration, even when not used in a direct personal attack. (Though my use of "Brit" was highly objected to, before the "Gang" phrases were uttered.)*Insults direct at individuals like stupid, fool, idiots, etc. were relevant to the discussion and a number of diffs presented for a couple of editors. Are they included?Frankly, the whole thing brings up the issues of competence by the committee, bias aside. Sigh...CM___Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

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

Re: [Gendergap] Moving forward

That "passion about SOMETHING" I shall suggest is in the case of the most prolific editors nothing more than a passion to contribute to Wikipedia. Ordinary contributors soon contribute all they reasonably wish to spend time contributing, leaving the compulsive elements "here to write an encyclopaedia" to rule the roost. But there's the catch: the kind of "writing" that contributors to Wikipedia indulge if they are to abide by Wikipedia's “no original research” dictum is very far from that which writers, say journalists, usually indulge. To say that they are "writing" an encyclopaedia is thus essentially a conceit, and to praise them for it simply a device to preserve the status of an elite.

On December 2, 2014 at 12:34 PM Tim Davenport wrote:

In reply to Kerry Raymond's post...

QUANTIFICATION

If "all the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10%" but there are anecdotes of a significant undercount from Teahouse volunteers and such and if female participation at Wikimania approaches one-third, would that not seem to fortify my point that there is a need for reexamination of the magnitude of the gender gap? What is the exact magnitude of the female undercount (or the male overcount)?

This does not even bring up the matter of dynamics — is the gender disparity changing over time, and if so, which direction is it moving?

There is only one way to find this out: study, study, study, survey, survey, survey...

That WMF has its own editor gender data from 2012 that it is not releasing, as has been intimated, is annoying. Still: why is the GGTF waiting for San Francisco at all? Why is quantification and surveying not a vital part of the task force's mission?

That there is an editorial gender gap is beyond dispute. But how big is it really and how is it changing over time?

PROACTIVE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION

So if edit-a-thons don't work, as you indicate, why is the WMF still spending money on them? Is it mere symbolism?

I have noted from working with a college class at WP that short-term class assignments don't seem to create long-term Wikipedians. Students being students, they slam out the minimum required right before deadline and move along with their lives. I don't know what does create long-term content people, other than a passion about SOMETHING and a desire to share the information. Vandal fighters and quality control people may have a different motivation.

Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that there is NOTHING that can be done proactively to pick the needles out of the haystack — that it is impossible for any bureaucratic entity to identify and activate the small fraction of 1% of people that will eventually become long-term Wikipedia volunteers.

This would mean that the "needles" are going to self-identify by registering at WP and beginning work under their own volition. Therefore, logically, primary attention should be focused on identifying and cultivating "new editors" every day, nurturing the newbies as they start to navigate the technical and cultural learning curves. In which case, Ms. Stierch's "Teahouse" concept is 100% right on the money.

And that's where the gender gap can be addressed, by making sure that every effort is made to teach and acclimate female newcomers in particular.

As for edit-a-thons and outreach recruiting, I personally believe that any recruitment that is not focused on teachers and academics will probably not produce lasting results. I'm also pretty well convinced that long term Wikipedians are made one at a time.

Tim Davenport

"Carrite" on WP

Corvallis, OR

Kerry Raymond wrote:
A. All the studies on female participation come up with low percentagesaround 10% plus or minus a few percent. Of course, it is possible that inall of the studies the women are choosing not to self-identify. It is aninherent difficulty in any study if people choose to not reveal information.But we know women make up large proportions of social media users, so ifwomens participation in Wikipedia is actually higher than studies show dueto reluctance to self-identify, it begs the question of why they are sounwilling to self-identify in the content of Wikipedia but not in othercontexts. Either way, it points to some problem. The last Wikimania recentlyreleased data that does show a higher level of female participat

Re: [Gendergap] Relevant election questions for Arbcom

I wish i could vote, but i was banned for critcizing abuse by admins who are 
dragging the project down. The voting process does not allow banned or blocked 
users to vote, so i hope those that got blocked in this arbcom case voted 
already. Because if not, they missed their opportunity to have their vote 
count. In fact, i would be willing to bet that even if they did, they will not 
be counted as "banned" editors.

Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE device


-- Original message--
From: Fæ
Date: Mon, Dec 1, 2014 1:27 PM
To: GenderGap;Increasing involvement of LGBT communities and organizing the 
Wikimedia LGBT Outreach Project;
Subject:[Gendergap] Relevant election questions for Arbcom

In the light of the contentious Gender Gap Task Force case, I have
raised the following question for candidates in the current election:
"I'm having difficulty visualizing how Arbcom today represents the
diversity of our community. Would you like to identify yourself as a
woman or LGBT, and explain what life experience and values you would
bring to the committee when these become topics or a locus of
dispute?"

I will be voting for women and open LGBT candidates that bring some
relevant and diverse life experience to committee, and against
everyone else. I am sure they will get enough votes from the majority
viewpoint anyway.

You can find all candidate questions and their answers at
.
Don't forget to vote - there are 6 days left!

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] Moving forward

there is a lack of continuity studying editing behaviors,
it is all one-off studies, not longitudinal
they only know "editor decline" because it's an easy data dump.
that said, there is some data from editations being gathered by eval &
testing group.

we fund editathons because the primary goal is institutional engagement,
not editor training. we do the training, because editing is a barrier to
entry, (learning curve is too hard)
a process with a 1% yield may need to be reinforced, since no process = 0%
yield.
there needs to be a culture change, beyond the "editors are a a dime a
dozen"
we can not rely on self-starters to become productive; the rate is not
large enough to replace the leaving editors. too much needs to be done, for
the existing numbers

until there is a change to the bitey culture, newbies will stay away, or
not edit except at editathons.
until then, we can organize circles of civility, and provide some positive
reinforcement.
we need to develop norms that may be outside of wiki process, i.e. no AfC,
and push those that work, VE, teahouse, off wiki organization.

arbcom or WMF, are now saying the right words, but do not have a plan or
the will to implement. the GGTF case tends to undermine the credibility of
arbcom.

slow


On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Sarah Stierch 
wrote:

> Just a gentle reminder..that the work we did evaluating edit-a-thons and
> workshops when I worked at WMF showed that they do not retain new
> editors.[1]
>
> They're good for getting people aware about Wikipedia - and people do edit
> while they are at the event, but, newer editors rarely edit AFTER the
> event, that is until the next event happensso they aren't probably the
> magic way to solve the gender gap. Even those that involve academics, etc.
> I even evaluated my own edit-a-thons that I had implemented and saw the
> same trend, much to my dismay.
>
> However, providing quality mechanisms of education, outreach, and help
> can. We see that with the Teahouse.
>
> WMF told me a while ago they weren't going to invest in surveys,
> programming, etc and that it was up to the chapters and the "community" to
> take the initiative and be proactive. That was one of the biggest
> challenges of my fellowship - while I worked on two successful projects
> (Teahouse/WWC) and am very proud to have done that, I was really sad that
> more research and direct outreach was not going to be implemented. I've
> said it before and I'll say it again - I was broken hearted that I wasn't
> going to do more direct outreach to groups, institutions, and so forth. If
> we were able to make womencentric/diversity events part of institutional
> change internationally I think we could have seen a larger impact - like
> what GLAM-Wiki did. People go around and preach the gospel internationally
> and now GLAM-Wiki is almost old news.. lots of people are doing it...
>
> (Of course, WMF now invests in surveys and so forth via the Individual
> Engagement Grants)
>
> I wonder if having a chapter implement a survey for a specific language
> Wikipedia or something would work? When I did my 2011 survey I did it on my
> own, without asking anyone's permission. Now it seems everyone wants to
> control who investigates what, but, being a community member helped - I'm
> not some scientist from outside trying to put a microscope on a bunch of
> Wikipedians...because I am one.
>
> But, these ongoing mass-improvement and participatory projects by women
> come and go based on the month ("oh it's women' history month...get out the
> laptops and snacks!") and who is organizing. It's becoming more common -
> but, we still aren't hearing about women getting together or lot lots of
> women regularly editing. I still believe, based on Sue's thoughts, that not
> every woman is going to want to edit Wikipedia on a regular basis outside
> an event - just like not every man will. Some humans just aren't built to
> enjoy it like we all do...
>
> Sarah
>
> [1]
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2013/Edit-a-thons
> and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Case_studies/WWHM
>
> -Sarah
>
> On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Tim Davenport  wrote:
>
>> In reply to Kerry Raymond's post...
>>
>>
>> QUANTIFICATION
>>
>> If "all the studies on female participation come up with low percentages
>> around 10%" but there are anecdotes of a significant undercount from
>> Teahouse volunteers and such and if female participation at Wikimania
>> approaches one-third, would that not seem to fortify my point that there is
>> a need for reexamination of the magnitude of the gender gap? What is the
>> exact magnitude of the female undercount (or the male overcount)?
>>
>> This does not even bring up the matter of dynamics — is the gender
>> disparity changing over time, and if so, which direction is it moving?
>>
>> There is only one way to find this out: study, study, study, survey,
>> survey, survey...
>>
>> That WMF has its own edito

Re: [Gendergap] a gender gap meet-up?