Re: [Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[emijrp]

2012/2/5 Delphine Ménard 

> Also, I just realized that with SUL, the gender is not passed from one
> wiki to the other, and frankly, I doubt people revisit their
> preferences for each wiki (my account is active on 108 wikis... I'm
> never gonna change all of those !*) they do 100 edits on. Just a
> caveat.
>
>
Yes, but people use (mainly) only a Wikipedia as home project, and they
modify the preferences if they are interested in doing it. I edit in many
other Wikipedias too, but only 1 or 2 edits every week/month. That tiny
contributions doesn't change a bit of the graph lines. I don't have the
real figures, but I doubt it affects more than 5% of disclosed gender edits.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[Federico Leva (Nemo)]

Sarah Stierch, 05/02/2012 17:16:

Delphine - thanks for letting us know that they don't carry over. I
never knew that! I'll probably change mine as I travel across wiki's :)


The only "global preference" is email address (and password).

Nemo

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

Re: [Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[Sarah Stierch]

On 2/5/12 11:14 AM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
I think, keeping in mind what Erik pointed out about the bias of such 
a statistics, that it would be extremely interesting to be able to 
compare those numbers (disclosed male or female) with non identified 
gender. For all we know, females might make the bulk of that number, 
so that would give a little perspective. Also, I just realized that 
with SUL, the gender is not passed from one wiki to the other, and 
frankly, I doubt people revisit their preferences for each wiki (my 
account is active on 108 wikis... I'm never gonna change all of those 
!*) they do 100 edits on. Just a caveat. Cheers, Delphine *Talking of 
which, fr wiki just gained a female editor, cos I had never thought of 
changing that setting, one way or the other. ;-) 


Delphine - thanks for letting us know that they don't carry over. I 
never knew that! I'll probably change mine as I travel across wiki's :)


-Sarah


--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/*
>>Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate today 
<<
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[Delphine Ménard]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 10:59 PM, emijrp  wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> Is there any up-to-date statistical tools monitoring gender gap? I have
> started this basic one[1], and I'm thinking about an analysis of male-female
> biographies ratio between Wikipedias.
>
> Suggestions and links to tools are welcome.

I think, keeping in mind what Erik pointed out about the bias of such
a statistics, that it would be extremely interesting to be able to
compare those numbers (disclosed male or female) with non identified
gender. For all we know, females might make the bulk of that number,
so that would give a little perspective.

Also, I just realized that with SUL, the gender is not passed from one
wiki to the other, and frankly, I doubt people revisit their
preferences for each wiki (my account is active on 108 wikis... I'm
never gonna change all of those !*) they do 100 edits on. Just a
caveat.

Cheers,

Delphine
*Talking of which, fr wiki just gained a female editor, cos I had
never thought of changing that setting, one way or the other. ;-)

-- 
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org

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

Re: [Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[Laura Hale]

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 5:38 AM, emijrp  wrote:

> 2012/2/1 emijrp 
>
>> ... and I'm thinking about an analysis of male-female biographies ratio
>> between Wikipedias.
>>
>
> After an analysis of a sample of 364k biographies where ~44% of them where
> classified using he/she his/her word occurences, it shows only 6.2% of
> female biographies on English Wikipedia. These results are preliminar, has
> anyone done a similar approach before? I don't want to reinvent the wheel.
>
>
I believe at one point John Vandenberg developed a statistical tool that
allowed us to determine the percentage of male vs female Australian female
sport competitors (identified through the use of categories) who had the
meta data in their biographies completed.  Not quite the same thing, but
was still extremely useful in the context of us identifying areas needing
work.


-- 
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[Paolo Massa]

On Sat, Feb 4, 2012 at 7:38 PM, emijrp  wrote:
> 2012/2/1 emijrp 
>>
>> ... and I'm thinking about an analysis of male-female biographies ratio
>> between Wikipedias.
>
>
> After an analysis of a sample of 364k biographies where ~44% of them where
> classified using he/she his/her word occurences, it shows only 6.2% of
> female biographies on English Wikipedia. These results are preliminar, has
> anyone done a similar approach before? I don't want to reinvent the wheel.
(1) Check the paper by Lauren Rhue and Joseph Reagle "Gender Bias in
Wikipedia and Britannica"
http://reagle.org/joseph/blog/social/wikipedia/gender-bias-in-wp-eb.html

The method of crawling the sites, the large size of the comparison,
and the guessing of genders were interesting technical challenges that
once addressed permitted us to write (...) We conclude that Wikipedia
provides better coverage and longer articles, that Wikipedia typically
has more articles on women than Britannica in absolute terms, but
Wikipedia articles on women are more likely to be missing than
articles on men relative to Britannica. For both reference works,
article length did not consistently differ by gender.

(2) Cultural bias in Wikipedia content on famous persons by  Ewa S.
Callahan,  Susan C. Herring
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/asi.21577/full
This study examines the extent to which content and perspectives vary
across cultures by comparing articles about famous persons in the
Polish and English editions of Wikipedia.
(I don't remember if and how much they emphasise gender in their
analysis and I think they do mainly manual coding but I'm not sure,
anyway worth checking)

-- 
--
Paolo Massa
Email: paolo AT gnuband DOT org
Blog: http://gnuband.org

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

Re: [Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[emijrp]

2012/2/1 emijrp 

> ... and I'm thinking about an analysis of male-female biographies ratio
> between Wikipedias.
>

After an analysis of a sample of 364k biographies where ~44% of them where
classified using he/she his/her word occurences, it shows only 6.2% of
female biographies on English Wikipedia. These results are preliminar, has
anyone done a similar approach before? I don't want to reinvent the wheel.
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[Carol Moore DC]

On 2/2/2012 3:03 AM, Caroline Becker wrote:
Don't be depress Sarah if female participation remains low. Even if 
Wikipedia was a perfect place without any bias, it would still be a 
project from the "real world" were lot of forces prevent women from 
editing : lower confidence in themselves, less free time, lower access 
to education.


We can't change the world, juste make our small environnement a little 
less unjust.


Caroline
Particularly making it more acceptable to raise the issues of 
harassment, double standards and systematic bias in various dispute 
situations in terms of sex.


So far I've been lucky that in the most negative situations others did 
raise it and call it out, if not on my sex, at least on political or 
admin vs. editor basis.  When I brought up the sex bias issue I was 
ignored or ridiculed.


Of course, it helps if women (acknowledged being so or not) spend more 
time commenting on ANI or Wikiquette or other places where civility and 
sometimes even sex bias issues raised. I've been on latter lately here 
and there; not on former in quite a while.


CM

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

Re: [Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[emijrp]

Here is the accumulate by project family
http://toolserver.org/~emijrp/wmcharts/wmchart0013.html Wikiquote,
Wikisource and Wikiversity are the winners.

2012/2/2 John Vandenberg 

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:05 AM, emijrp  wrote:
> > 2012/2/2 Sarah Stierch 
> >>...
> >> What else are people seeing in their chosen languages that might be
> >> interesting? Anything surprising?
> >>
> >
> > No. Only a few examples where women are 15-25% of edits some days but in
> > small Wikipedias or sister projects. They are not representative.
>
> I think (hope..) you might find a high female participate rate even if
> you aggregate across all of the Wikisource projects.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> 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] Statistics about gender gap

[Nina Wikipedia]

Thanks Sarah!

 Nina
Sendt fra min iPhone

Den 2. feb. 2012 kl. 22:15 skrev Sarah :

> On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:05 PM, emijrp  wrote:
>> By the way, you can't invite 1000 women that a day after leave because they
>> don't understand how to edit (usability) or other reason. First, you have to
>> understand why women leave. When you solves that, every woman that arrives,
>> will continue editing "forever". You won't need to invite them.
>> 
> I agree with this point, and I wonder whether we're approaching
> outreach from the wrong perspective. We are asking "what is good for
> Wikipedia?" when we should be asking "what is good for the women we
> want to sign up?" If we create an environment in which they can
> thrive, then they'll come and they'll stay, and we won't have to keep
> begging them to join us.
> 
> But we have serious problems in the community. I've been on wikibreak
> for a few months, during which time I barely looked at Wikipedia (the
> English Wikipedia). When I did start to look again, I saw a community
> that is really fracturing. Lots of serious incivility, old grudges
> being played out in various places, and what one editor called regular
> Leninist purges. None of this is new, but it's getting worse. Plus,
> too many rules too rigidly enforced, too many confusing templates, and
> a push for quality that often boils down to endless nitpicking. And
> the most off-putting thing of all -- you spend hours, days or weeks on
> a piece of work only to see someone come along and casually destroy
> it.
> 
> It is causing established editors to leave or reduce their
> involvement, including some of the few women we have. Old editors are
> leaving for the same reasons new editors are failing to arrive or
> stay. As I've argued many times, we need less outreach and more
> "inreach".
> 
> Can we persuade the Foundation to be more hands-on in dealing with the
> existing issues, rather than outreach?
> 
> For example, I'm thinking it could offer a $15,000 prize for an essay
> that best gives us insight into the problems -- competition widely
> advertised, and open to anyone, including non-Wikimedians -- judging
> panel to be composed of Foundation employees. Perhaps a major
> publisher could be persuaded to publish the winning entry as an extra
> incentive.
> 
> I'm also thinking the Foundation could hire a consultant on how to fix
> toxic communities. We are basically confronting a kind of workplace
> bullying as the essence of the problem, and there are plenty of people
> around who specialize in that. We tried to persuade the Foundation
> some years ago to hire a consultant on how to handle harassment, but
> it didn't work out. I think if we had done that, quite a few of the
> issues we see now might have turned out differently.
> 
> I wonder whether the Foundation feels conflicted in this. On the one
> hand, they want to promote the idea that "Wikipedia is wonderful. Come
> and join us!" On the other hand, acknowledging the community's
> problems too openly puts out the opposite of that message. So we end
> up not getting the kind of all-out, top-down push for community health
> that we need.
> 
> 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] Statistics about gender gap

[Sarah]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 9:05 PM, emijrp  wrote:
> By the way, you can't invite 1000 women that a day after leave because they
> don't understand how to edit (usability) or other reason. First, you have to
> understand why women leave. When you solves that, every woman that arrives,
> will continue editing "forever". You won't need to invite them.
>
I agree with this point, and I wonder whether we're approaching
outreach from the wrong perspective. We are asking "what is good for
Wikipedia?" when we should be asking "what is good for the women we
want to sign up?" If we create an environment in which they can
thrive, then they'll come and they'll stay, and we won't have to keep
begging them to join us.

But we have serious problems in the community. I've been on wikibreak
for a few months, during which time I barely looked at Wikipedia (the
English Wikipedia). When I did start to look again, I saw a community
that is really fracturing. Lots of serious incivility, old grudges
being played out in various places, and what one editor called regular
Leninist purges. None of this is new, but it's getting worse. Plus,
too many rules too rigidly enforced, too many confusing templates, and
a push for quality that often boils down to endless nitpicking. And
the most off-putting thing of all -- you spend hours, days or weeks on
a piece of work only to see someone come along and casually destroy
it.

It is causing established editors to leave or reduce their
involvement, including some of the few women we have. Old editors are
leaving for the same reasons new editors are failing to arrive or
stay. As I've argued many times, we need less outreach and more
"inreach".

Can we persuade the Foundation to be more hands-on in dealing with the
existing issues, rather than outreach?

For example, I'm thinking it could offer a $15,000 prize for an essay
that best gives us insight into the problems -- competition widely
advertised, and open to anyone, including non-Wikimedians -- judging
panel to be composed of Foundation employees. Perhaps a major
publisher could be persuaded to publish the winning entry as an extra
incentive.

I'm also thinking the Foundation could hire a consultant on how to fix
toxic communities. We are basically confronting a kind of workplace
bullying as the essence of the problem, and there are plenty of people
around who specialize in that. We tried to persuade the Foundation
some years ago to hire a consultant on how to handle harassment, but
it didn't work out. I think if we had done that, quite a few of the
issues we see now might have turned out differently.

I wonder whether the Foundation feels conflicted in this. On the one
hand, they want to promote the idea that "Wikipedia is wonderful. Come
and join us!" On the other hand, acknowledging the community's
problems too openly puts out the opposite of that message. So we end
up not getting the kind of all-out, top-down push for community health
that we need.

Sarah

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

Re: [Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[Caroline Becker]

Don't be depress Sarah if female participation remains low. Even if
Wikipedia was a perfect place without any bias, it would still be a project
from the "real world" were lot of forces prevent women from editing : lower
confidence in themselves, less free time, lower access to education.

We can't change the world, juste make our small environnement a little less
unjust.

Caroline


2012/2/2 John Vandenberg 

> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:05 AM, emijrp  wrote:
> > 2012/2/2 Sarah Stierch 
> >>...
> >> What else are people seeing in their chosen languages that might be
> >> interesting? Anything surprising?
> >>
> >
> > No. Only a few examples where women are 15-25% of edits some days but in
> > small Wikipedias or sister projects. They are not representative.
>
> I think (hope..) you might find a high female participate rate even if
> you aggregate across all of the Wikisource projects.
>
> --
> John Vandenberg
>
> ___
> 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] Statistics about gender gap

[John Vandenberg]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 11:05 AM, emijrp  wrote:
> 2012/2/2 Sarah Stierch 
>>...
>> What else are people seeing in their chosen languages that might be
>> interesting? Anything surprising?
>>
>
> No. Only a few examples where women are 15-25% of edits some days but in
> small Wikipedias or sister projects. They are not representative.

I think (hope..) you might find a high female participate rate even if
you aggregate across all of the Wikisource projects.

-- 
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[John Vandenberg]

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 8:59 AM, emijrp  wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> Is there any up-to-date statistical tools monitoring gender gap? I have
> started this basic one[1], and I'm thinking about an analysis of male-female
> biographies ratio between Wikipedias.
>
> Suggestions and links to tools are welcome.

> Regards,
> emijrp
>
> [1] http://toolserver.org/~emijrp/wmcharts/wmchart0010.html

Great tool.
The following projects have good female participation:

plwikisource_p
dewikisource_p
eswikisource_p
frwikisource_p

enwikisource_p
itwikisource_p

(does anyone notice a common theme ... ;P)

dewikinews_p
dewikiversity_p
frwikibooks_p
frwiktionary_p

It would be nice to have a list of projects ranked by female
participation rate, using this metric and others that people devise.

--
John Vandenberg

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

Re: [Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[Erik Moeller]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 1:59 PM, emijrp  wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> Is there any up-to-date statistical tools monitoring gender gap? I have
> started this basic one[1], and I'm thinking about an analysis of male-female
> biographies ratio between Wikipedias.
>
> Suggestions and links to tools are welcome.

See previous thread
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-December/002250.html

for issues regarding any kind of analysis based on the user preference
data. I'd suggest adding a strong disclaimer to this effect, otherwise
people are likely to draw incorrect conclusions from it.

-- 
Erik Möller
VP of Engineering and Product Development, Wikimedia Foundation

Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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

Re: [Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[emijrp]

2012/2/2 Sarah Stierch 

>  On 2/1/12 5:39 PM, Sarah wrote:
>
>
> That's very interesting, thank you (and somewhat depressing).
>
> Sarah
>
> ___
>
>
>
> Yeah, it just shows that we need to take action.
>

We need to take action if a low number of women means a bias in
encyclopedic contents. Not just because numbers are low. That is why I want
to count how many female biographies there are and other measures to
discover if it exists a bias in content.


> Imagine if every Wikimedia contributor on this list, took a few hours and
> invited a friend, colleague or family member to contribute to a Project?
>

We have to invite men and women. Every editor is welcome.

By the way, you can't invite 1000 women that a day after leave because they
don't understand how to edit (usability) or other reason. First, you have
to understand why women leave. When you solves that, every woman that
arrives, will continue editing "forever". You won't need to invite them.


> As someone who has done a survey that just continued to solidify the
> depressing state of women and Wikimedia, and thinks about it probably more
> than a person should...I just get sick of it at this point. I want to see
> increase, damnit. :( No more same old bad news.
>
>
Well, it may be sad, but we have to study this from a calm side.


>  I think it's funny to see that WikiNews has no women. Even though *This
> Month in GLAM* and *The Signpost* both have contributors. Also
> interesting that Commons has a steady amount of women who make edits. I
> think I could probably name them all off the top of my head. OrI wonder
> how many of those women are new contributors who upload an image and then
> never come back (since you have to have an account to upload).
>
> What else are people seeing in their chosen languages that might be
> interesting? Anything surprising?
>
>
No. Only a few examples where women are 15-25% of edits some days but in
small Wikipedias or sister projects. They are not representative.


>  Anyplace on Wiki where women really do dominate in this data?
>
>
No.


> -Sarah
>
>
Regards,
Emily


>
>
>
> --
> *Sarah Stierch*
> *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
> >>Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate 
> >>today
> <<
>
> ___
> 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] Statistics about gender gap

[Sarah Stierch]

On 2/1/12 5:39 PM, Sarah wrote:


That's very interesting, thank you (and somewhat depressing).

Sarah

___



Yeah, it just shows that we need to take action. Imagine if every 
Wikimedia contributor on this list, took a few hours and invited a 
friend, colleague or family member to contribute to a Project? As 
someone who has done a survey that just continued to solidify the 
depressing state of women and Wikimedia, and thinks about it probably 
more than a person should...I just get sick of it at this point. I want 
to see increase, damnit. :( No more same old bad news.


I think it's funny to see that WikiNews has no women. Even though /This 
Month in GLAM/ and /The Signpost/ both have contributors. Also 
interesting that Commons has a steady amount of women who make edits. I 
think I could probably name them all off the top of my head. OrI 
wonder how many of those women are new contributors who upload an image 
and then never come back (since you have to have an account to upload).


What else are people seeing in their chosen languages that might be 
interesting? Anything surprising?


Anyplace on Wiki where women really do dominate in this data?

-Sarah




--
*Sarah Stierch*
*/Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/*
>>Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate today 
<<
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Re: [Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[Sarah]

On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 6:59 PM, emijrp  wrote:
> Hi all;
>
> Is there any up-to-date statistical tools monitoring gender gap? I have
> started this basic one[1], and I'm thinking about an analysis of male-female
> biographies ratio between Wikipedias.
>
> Suggestions and links to tools are welcome.
>
> Regards,
> emijrp
>
> [1] http://toolserver.org/~emijrp/wmcharts/wmchart0010.html
>
That's very interesting, thank you (and somewhat depressing).

Sarah

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

[Gendergap] Statistics about gender gap

[emijrp]

Hi all;

Is there any up-to-date statistical tools monitoring gender gap? I have
started this basic one[1], and I'm thinking about an analysis of
male-female biographies ratio between Wikipedias.

Suggestions and links to tools are welcome.

Regards,
emijrp

[1] http://toolserver.org/~emijrp/wmcharts/wmchart0010.html
___
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap