Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[WereSpielChequers]

This might appear to some to be getting a little off topic for this list, but 
if you are beginning to think that of this thread I would plead for a little 
indulgence, and for people to approach this thread from the angle of how can we 
form research projects around this. Like many people I regard the dark side of 
the community as a legitimate topic for research and I would point out that the 
foundation is offering grant funds for projects targeted at the gender gap.

My reversal of Kerry's statement would be more like:

"I think if we can make Wikipedia less attractive to bullies, I rather suspect 
we make it a more attractive place for everyone else."

Since we don't know how to do this (yes there are some easy part solutions out 
there, but no magic bullets, certainly none that wouldn't have troubling side 
effects) there is an opportunity for researchers to make some innovative 
proposals.

Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> On 17 Feb 2015, at 08:20, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote:
> 
> (disclaimer: research-wise, in this thread, I am speaking from a margin 
> position in a role maybe similar to the one Shakespeare potrays his fools in, 
> because it is not my field and I only have a rather vague idea of how people 
> actually undertake such studies)
> 
> re 
>> I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive 
>> to women, I rather suspect we make it a more 
>> attractive place for everyone.
> 
> what about yet another reversal game and see what happens:
> 
> this would be Kerry's statement from another perspective:
> "I think if we can make Wikipedia less attractive 
> to men, I rather suspect we make it a more 
> attractive place for everyone."
> 
> what kind of reseach design would be needed for this?
> 
> best,
> Claudia
> 
> -- Original Message ---
> From:"Kerry Raymond" 
> To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'"  l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:59:35 +1000
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on 
> genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> 
>> I agree the issues are not necessarily about male-
>> female interactions. It may be about bully-victim 
>> interactions. I often suspect we are seeing an 
>> online form of
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
>> 
>> playing out, where anyone can choose to be the 
>> prison guard enforcing the rules (of which we have 
>> plenty) taking advantage of the lack of real-world 
>> accountability (thanks to pseudonymity).
>> 
>> However, in terms of any kind of metric to measure 
>> progress, I think measuring Male/Female/DontKnow 
>> is a lot more viable than trying to count the 
>> number of bullies and victims (or powerful vs less 
>> powerful).
>> 
>> I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive 
>> to women, I rather suspect we make it a more 
>> attractive place for everyone.
>> 
>> Kerry
>> 
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
>> research-l
> --- End of Original Message ---
> 
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[WereSpielChequers]

My comment "It could even test the theory that the community is more abrasive 
towards women. We know that we are less successful at recruiting female editors 
than male ones, I'm not sure if we have tested whether we are more successful 
at retaining established male editors than female ones, and if so whether we 
are losing women because they are lured away or driven away." Seems to have 
been shortened to me saying that "the community is more abrasive towards 
women".  Before people continue using that quotation and attributing it to me, 
may I point out that I regard it as an interesting theory worth researching, 
not as a proven statement. I don't doubt that we have a massively male skew in 
the community, I have seen too many pieces of evidence that all point that way 
to doubt that. I am also fairly sure that women, and I'd add gays are more 
likely to be attacked by trolls and others from outside what I regard as the 
wikipedia community than straight white men like myself. But I don't know if 
the community is more abrasive to women or in what way it is, and I would be 
interested to see more research done in that area.

Regards

Jonathan Cardy


> On 17 Feb 2015, at 08:00, Jane Darnell  wrote:
> 
> Hi Claudial,
> I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable.
> Jane
> 
> WereSpielChequers wrote:
> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
> 
> I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the conclusion 
> was "the community can be perceived to be abrasive" and this conclusion, in 
> yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should be rephrased as 
> "the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women than by men"
> 
> Kerry wrote:
> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this
> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
> progress against that target, one has to question the point of establishing a
> target."
> 
> ___Claudia (responding to Kerry):
> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
> measuring the progress...
> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might add, 
> in
> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation does
> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
> 
> I think here you are forgetting about the "holy shit graph" which shows a 
> reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of a 
> direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been stated 
> before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage. Oddly, I 
> think it is one of the easiest of all "participatory gaps" to measure, but we 
> seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that previous editor 
> surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of never actually 
> being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we have not yet been 
> able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing apples to oranges.
> 
> Aaron wrote:
> "higher quality survey data"
> __Claudia (responding to Aaron):  ...how does one recognize low quality..?
> Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the criticism of the various editor 
> surveys. Is this stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift through 
> reams of emails until we find all the various objections? Objections galore, 
> as I recall.
> 
> ___Claudia: which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
> Off the top of my head, some of these would be 
> 
> 1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as active editors in rural areas 
> or even in whole states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the whole "Global 
> South participation problem" (the Global South participation problem is even 
> helped along inadvertently by the new read-only "Wikipedia-zero" effect); 
> 2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that technically don't lend 
> themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical 
> production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to make movies, how to 
> choreograph motion) 
> 3) lack of topical expertise on subjects that legally don't lend themselves 
> well to the Wikiverse, such as articles about artworks under copyright that 
> cannot be illustrated in an article; 
> 4) lack of topical editor coverage on subjects previously shut out - there is 
> still unwillingness by a whole group to re-enter the Wikiverse after being 
> banned (earlier shut-outs such as blocking whole institution-wide ip ranges 
> for vandalism or whole areas of expertise such as groups of writers for their 
> COI editing, carry with them a history of anti-Wikipedia sentiment that lasts 
> a long time in various enclaves)
> 
> ___Claudia:
> and, again, in which language version(s)?
> That's easy - the languages that we can technically support but don't yet 
> have Wikipedias for and the languages for which we don't even have the fonts 
> to display them.
> 
> best,
> Clau

Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[koltzenburg]

... so what if IRL many more female* editors start articles on trans*, inter*, 
non-genderidentified* and male* people than male* editors start articles on 
female*, trans*, inter* and non-genderidentified* people?

best,
Claudia

-- Original Message ---
From:Maximilian Klein 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:09:38 -0800
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: 
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Note that looking at article-gender and not editor-
> gender gives 15.6% female figure [1], which is 
> similar to the ~16% other in the literature. If 
> article-gender is a proxy for editor-gender, that 
> is useful because it is easier to calculate 
> article-gender.
> 
> [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03086v1.pdf
> 
> Make a great day,
> Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/
> 
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Halfaker 

> wrote:
> 
> > Note that Lam et al. came to the same 16.1% figure through completely
> > different methods in 2011.
> > http://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf
> >
> > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 

> > wrote:
> >
> >> hi,
> >>
> >>
> >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM,  wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>> > the current methods are far from perfect.
> >>>
> >>> in your opinion, in which respect do they need to be improved?
> >>>
> >>
> >> the thing is, with Internet research we often have to rely on anonymous
> >> declarations. It would be nice to e.g. cross-reference with data from
> >> social networks, but it is not possible to introduce ethically without 
user
> >> consent, and without the consent the problem of opt-in selective bias is
> >> still real. What we can do (and do) is triangulation of methods.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> has anyone published on that, or are there any "non-published" links
> >>> available?
> >>>
> >>
> >> I think the most interesting approach to the problem is covered by 
Mako
> >> and Aaron:
> >> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782
> >>
> >> best,
> >>
> >> dj
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> best,
> >>> Claudia
> >>> koltzenb...@w4w.net
> >>> Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> >>> - mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
> >>>
> >>> -- Original Message ---
> >>> From:Dariusz Jemielniak 
> >>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities  >>> l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:58:56 +0100
> >>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: 
Fwd:
> >>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>>
> >>> > hi there,
> >>> >
> >>> > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you
> >>> > that a lot of data we have is outdated, and that
> >>> > there are way too many generalizations about
> >>> > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and
> >>> > Mako pointed out in their paper (referred to by
> >>> > Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
> >>> > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods
> >>> > are far from perfect. As far as I recall, they did
> >>> > a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a publication
> >>> > coming up?
> >>> >
> >>> > best,
> >>> >
> >>> > dariusz
> >>> >
> >>> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM,
> >>> >   wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > hi all,
> >>> > > can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
> >>> quantitative
> >>> > > studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for 
example,
> >>> and
> >>> > > also
> >>> > > changing the framework in which the data were created)
> >>> > >
> >>> > > another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host 
of
> >>> > > languages,
> >>> > > statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
> >>> language
> >>> > > version (community) the data were created in/from.
> >>> > > my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite
> >>> different
> >>> > > from
> >>> > > results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one 
another
> >>> > > differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a
> >>> differently
> >>> > > gendered status in different communities, etc.
> >>> > >
> >>> > > the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
> >>> Wikipedia
> >>> > > readers" question that this thread started with,
> >>> > >
> >>> > > best,
> >>> > > Claudia
> >>> > > koltzenb...@w4w.net
> >>> > >
> >>> > > -- Original Message ---
> >>> > > From:Jeremy Foote 
> >>> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities  >>> > > l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >>> > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
> >>> > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
> >>> Fwd:
> >>> > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>> > >
> >>> > > > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
> >>> > > > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
> >>> > > > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
> >>> > >

[Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia aggregate clickstream data released

[Dario Taraborelli]

We’re glad to announce the release of an aggregate clickstream dataset 
extracted from English Wikipedia

http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1305770 


This dataset contains counts of (referer, article) pairs aggregated from the 
HTTP request logs of English Wikipedia. This snapshot captures 22 million 
(referer, article) pairs from a total of 4 billion requests collected during 
the month of January 2015.

This data can be used for various purposes:
• determining the most frequent links people click on for a given 
article
• determining the most common links people followed to an article
• determining how much of the total traffic to an article clicked on a 
link in that article
• generating a Markov chain over English Wikipedia

We created a page on Meta for feedback and discussion about this release: 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_clickstream 


Ellery and Dario___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[Michael Restivo]

I forgot that this is a text-based listserv. Here are links to the images I
referred to. My apologies.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/English_Wikipedians%27_stated_gender_ratio_by_edits%2C_February_2011.png
http://i.imgur.com/PXSBFa8.png

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Michael Restivo 
wrote:

> Wikipedia Signpost had a discussion of this question, including data on
> English Wikipedians' gender by edits:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-02-14/News_and_notes
>
> Their graph shows the male:female ratio:
> [image: A graph of decreasing bars from females occupying 15% initially to
> less than 5% on a logarithmic scale.]
>
> But their plot omits editors who do not disclose their gender. I plotted
> these data:
> [image: Inline image 2]
> Regards,
> Michael
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Maximilian Klein 
> wrote:
>
>> Note that looking at article-gender and not editor-gender gives 15.6%
>> female figure [1], which is similar to the ~16% other in the literature. If
>> article-gender is a proxy for editor-gender, that is useful because it is
>> easier to calculate article-gender.
>>
>> [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03086v1.pdf
>>
>>
>> Make a great day,
>> Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Halfaker > > wrote:
>>
>>> Note that Lam et al. came to the same 16.1% figure through completely
>>> different methods in 2011.
>>> http://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 hi,


 On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM,  wrote:

>
> > the current methods are far from perfect.
>
> in your opinion, in which respect do they need to be improved?
>

 the thing is, with Internet research we often have to rely on anonymous
 declarations. It would be nice to e.g. cross-reference with data from
 social networks, but it is not possible to introduce ethically without user
 consent, and without the consent the problem of opt-in selective bias is
 still real. What we can do (and do) is triangulation of methods.



> has anyone published on that, or are there any "non-published" links
> available?
>

 I think the most interesting approach to the problem is covered by Mako
 and Aaron:
 http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782

 best,

 dj



>
> best,
> Claudia
> koltzenb...@w4w.net
> Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> - mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
>
> -- Original Message ---
> From:Dariusz Jemielniak 
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities  l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:58:56 +0100
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
> > hi there,
> >
> > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you
> > that a lot of data we have is outdated, and that
> > there are way too many generalizations about
> > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and
> > Mako pointed out in their paper (referred to by
> > Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
> > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods
> > are far from perfect. As far as I recall, they did
> > a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a publication
> > coming up?
> >
> > best,
> >
> > dariusz
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM,
> >   wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
> > >
> > > hi all,
> > > can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
> quantitative
> > > studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for
> example, and
> > > also
> > > changing the framework in which the data were created)
> > >
> > > another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
> > > languages,
> > > statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
> language
> > > version (community) the data were created in/from.
> > > my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite
> different
> > > from
> > > results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one
> another
> > > differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a
> differently
> > > gendered status in different communities, etc.
> > >
> > > the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
> Wikipedia
> > > readers" question that this thread started with,
> > >
> > > best,
> > > Claudia
> > > koltzenb...@w4w.net
> > >
> > > -- Original Message ---
> > > From:Jeremy Foote 
> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities  > > l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[Michael Restivo]

Wikipedia Signpost had a discussion of this question, including data on
English Wikipedians' gender by edits:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-02-14/News_and_notes

Their graph shows the male:female ratio:
[image: A graph of decreasing bars from females occupying 15% initially to
less than 5% on a logarithmic scale.]

But their plot omits editors who do not disclose their gender. I plotted
these data:
[image: Inline image 2]
Regards,
Michael


On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Maximilian Klein  wrote:

> Note that looking at article-gender and not editor-gender gives 15.6%
> female figure [1], which is similar to the ~16% other in the literature. If
> article-gender is a proxy for editor-gender, that is useful because it is
> easier to calculate article-gender.
>
> [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03086v1.pdf
>
>
> Make a great day,
> Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Halfaker 
> wrote:
>
>> Note that Lam et al. came to the same 16.1% figure through completely
>> different methods in 2011.
>> http://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> hi,
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM,  wrote:
>>>

 > the current methods are far from perfect.

 in your opinion, in which respect do they need to be improved?

>>>
>>> the thing is, with Internet research we often have to rely on anonymous
>>> declarations. It would be nice to e.g. cross-reference with data from
>>> social networks, but it is not possible to introduce ethically without user
>>> consent, and without the consent the problem of opt-in selective bias is
>>> still real. What we can do (and do) is triangulation of methods.
>>>
>>>
>>>
 has anyone published on that, or are there any "non-published" links
 available?

>>>
>>> I think the most interesting approach to the problem is covered by Mako
>>> and Aaron:
>>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782
>>>
>>> best,
>>>
>>> dj
>>>
>>>
>>>

 best,
 Claudia
 koltzenb...@w4w.net
 Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
 - mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard

 -- Original Message ---
 From:Dariusz Jemielniak 
 To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities >>> l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
 Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:58:56 +0100
 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
 [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

 > hi there,
 >
 > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you
 > that a lot of data we have is outdated, and that
 > there are way too many generalizations about
 > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and
 > Mako pointed out in their paper (referred to by
 > Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
 > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods
 > are far from perfect. As far as I recall, they did
 > a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a publication
 > coming up?
 >
 > best,
 >
 > dariusz
 >
 > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM,
 >   wrote:
 >
 > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
 > >
 > > hi all,
 > > can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
 quantitative
 > > studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for
 example, and
 > > also
 > > changing the framework in which the data were created)
 > >
 > > another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
 > > languages,
 > > statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
 language
 > > version (community) the data were created in/from.
 > > my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite
 different
 > > from
 > > results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another
 > > differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a
 differently
 > > gendered status in different communities, etc.
 > >
 > > the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
 Wikipedia
 > > readers" question that this thread started with,
 > >
 > > best,
 > > Claudia
 > > koltzenb...@w4w.net
 > >
 > > -- Original Message ---
 > > From:Jeremy Foote 
 > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities >>> > > l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
 > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
 > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
 Fwd:
 > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
 > >
 > > > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
 > > > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
 > > > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
 > > > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
 > > > Gender Gap Revisited: Ch

Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[Maximilian Klein]

Note that looking at article-gender and not editor-gender gives 15.6%
female figure [1], which is similar to the ~16% other in the literature. If
article-gender is a proxy for editor-gender, that is useful because it is
easier to calculate article-gender.

[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03086v1.pdf


Make a great day,
Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Halfaker 
wrote:

> Note that Lam et al. came to the same 16.1% figure through completely
> different methods in 2011.
> http://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak 
> wrote:
>
>> hi,
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM,  wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> > the current methods are far from perfect.
>>>
>>> in your opinion, in which respect do they need to be improved?
>>>
>>
>> the thing is, with Internet research we often have to rely on anonymous
>> declarations. It would be nice to e.g. cross-reference with data from
>> social networks, but it is not possible to introduce ethically without user
>> consent, and without the consent the problem of opt-in selective bias is
>> still real. What we can do (and do) is triangulation of methods.
>>
>>
>>
>>> has anyone published on that, or are there any "non-published" links
>>> available?
>>>
>>
>> I think the most interesting approach to the problem is covered by Mako
>> and Aaron:
>> http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782
>>
>> best,
>>
>> dj
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> best,
>>> Claudia
>>> koltzenb...@w4w.net
>>> Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
>>> - mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
>>>
>>> -- Original Message ---
>>> From:Dariusz Jemielniak 
>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities >> l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:58:56 +0100
>>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
>>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>
>>> > hi there,
>>> >
>>> > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you
>>> > that a lot of data we have is outdated, and that
>>> > there are way too many generalizations about
>>> > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and
>>> > Mako pointed out in their paper (referred to by
>>> > Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our
>>> > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods
>>> > are far from perfect. As far as I recall, they did
>>> > a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a publication
>>> > coming up?
>>> >
>>> > best,
>>> >
>>> > dariusz
>>> >
>>> > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM,
>>> >   wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
>>> > >
>>> > > hi all,
>>> > > can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
>>> quantitative
>>> > > studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for example,
>>> and
>>> > > also
>>> > > changing the framework in which the data were created)
>>> > >
>>> > > another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
>>> > > languages,
>>> > > statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
>>> language
>>> > > version (community) the data were created in/from.
>>> > > my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite
>>> different
>>> > > from
>>> > > results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another
>>> > > differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a
>>> differently
>>> > > gendered status in different communities, etc.
>>> > >
>>> > > the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
>>> Wikipedia
>>> > > readers" question that this thread started with,
>>> > >
>>> > > best,
>>> > > Claudia
>>> > > koltzenb...@w4w.net
>>> > >
>>> > > -- Original Message ---
>>> > > From:Jeremy Foote 
>>> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities >> > > l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>> > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
>>> > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
>>> Fwd:
>>> > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>> > >
>>> > > > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
>>> > > > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
>>> > > > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
>>> > > > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
>>> > > > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
>>> > > > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
>>> > > > and is at
>>> > > > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
>>> > > id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
>>> > > >
>>> > > > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
>>> > > > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
>>> > > > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
>>> > > > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
>>> > > > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
>>> > > >
>>> > > > Best,
>>> > > > Jeremy
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>>> > > >> > > > > wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > > Hoi,
>>> >

Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[aaron shaw]

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 10:41 PM, koltzenb...@w4w.net 
 wrote:

> Aaron wrote:
> "higher quality survey data"
> well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so low?
> and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards?
>
> "causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related
> participation gaps)"
> which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
>

Jane's response was helpful and similar to mine.

Based on existing surveys, there are demographic and social categories of
people who are underrepresented among current editors. I don't have
specifics off the top of my head, but if you look at WMF survey results for
US editors and compare the findings to US census data (for example), you
can get an idea of some categories. Women are underrepresented to an
extreme degree, but they are not the only population that does not seem to
edit en:WP. I am less knowledgeable about other WPs, but I suspect there
are other inequalities and gaps on other wikis.


> where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of participation?
>

See above.


> and, again, in which language version(s)?
>

See above.





On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) 
 wrote:

>
> Speaking of which, the WMF doesn't have resources to appropriately
> process the 2012 survey data, so results aren't available yet. Did you
> consider offering them to take care of it, at least for the gendergap
> number? You would then be able to publish an update.
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#Looking_for_survey_results



As before, my understanding is that the method by which respondents were
selected to participate in the survey does not meet standard methods of
survey sampling (see this chunk

of
the description of the survey). As a result, I do not trust the results of
the 2012 survey to generate precise estimates of the gender gap or other
demographic details about participation. I've spoken to some very receptive
folks at the foundation about this and I hope that they/we will be able to
improve it in the future. I'm eager to help improve the survey data
collection procedures. Unfortunately, I do not have the capacity to analyze
the current survey data in greater depth.

The thing that allowed Mako and I to do the study that we published in
PLOSONE was the fact that (1) the old UNU-Merit & WMF survey sought to
include readers as well as editors; *and* (2) at the exact same time Pew
carried out a survey in which they asked a nearly identical question about
readership. We used the overlapping results about WP readership from both
surveys to generate a correction for the data about editorship. Without
similar data on readership and similar data from a representative sample of
some reference population (in the case of the pew survey, US adults), we
cannot perform the same correction. As a result, I do not feel comfortable
estimating how biased (or unbiased) the 2012 survey results may be.


a

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 12:00 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:

>  Hi Claudial,
> I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable.
> Jane
>
>  WereSpielChequers wrote:
> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
>
>  I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the
> conclusion was "the community can be perceived to be abrasive" and this
> conclusion, in yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should
> be rephrased as "the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women
> than by men"
>
>  Kerry wrote:
> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this
> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
> progress against that target, one has to question the point of
> establishing a
> target."
>
>  ___Claudia (responding to Kerry):
> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
> measuring the progress...
> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
> add, in
> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
> does
> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
>
>  I think here you are forgetting about the "holy shit graph" which shows
> a reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of
> a direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been
> stated before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage.
> Oddly, I think it is one of the easiest of all "participatory gaps" to
> measure, but we seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that
> previous editor surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of
> never actually being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we
> have not yet been able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing
> apples to oran

Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[koltzenburg]

(disclaimer: research-wise, in this thread, I am speaking from a margin 
position in a role maybe similar to the one Shakespeare potrays his fools in, 
because it is not my field and I only have a rather vague idea of how people 
actually undertake such studies)

re 
> I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive 
> to women, I rather suspect we make it a more 
> attractive place for everyone.

what about yet another reversal game and see what happens:

this would be Kerry's statement from another perspective:
"I think if we can make Wikipedia less attractive 
to men, I rather suspect we make it a more 
attractive place for everyone."

what kind of reseach design would be needed for this?

best,
Claudia

-- Original Message ---
From:"Kerry Raymond" 
To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" 
Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:59:35 +1000
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on 
genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> I agree the issues are not necessarily about male-
> female interactions. It may be about bully-victim 
> interactions. I often suspect we are seeing an 
> online form of
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
> 
> playing out, where anyone can choose to be the 
> prison guard enforcing the rules (of which we have 
> plenty) taking advantage of the lack of real-world 
> accountability (thanks to pseudonymity).
> 
> However, in terms of any kind of metric to measure 
> progress, I think measuring Male/Female/DontKnow 
> is a lot more viable than trying to count the 
> number of bullies and victims (or powerful vs less 
> powerful).
> 
> I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive 
> to women, I rather suspect we make it a more 
> attractive place for everyone.
> 
> Kerry
> 
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> research-l
--- End of Original Message ---

___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[Jane Darnell]

Hi Claudial,
I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable.
Jane

WereSpielChequers wrote:
"the community is more abrasive towards women"

I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the conclusion
was "the community can be perceived to be abrasive" and this conclusion, in
yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should be rephrased as
"the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women than by men"

Kerry wrote:
"But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this
particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
progress against that target, one has to question the point of establishing
a
target."

___Claudia (responding to Kerry):
I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
measuring the progress...
and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
add, in
speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
does
not fund any top level research... - or does it?

I think here you are forgetting about the "holy shit graph" which shows a
reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of a
direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been
stated before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage.
Oddly, I think it is one of the easiest of all "participatory gaps" to
measure, but we seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that
previous editor surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of
never actually being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we
have not yet been able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing
apples to oranges.

Aaron wrote:
"higher quality survey data"
__Claudia (responding to Aaron):  ...how does one recognize low quality..?
Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the criticism of the various editor
surveys. Is this stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift through
reams of emails until we find all the various objections? Objections
galore, as I recall.

___Claudia: which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
Off the top of my head, some of these would be

1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as active editors in rural
areas or even in whole states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the whole
"Global South participation problem" (the Global South participation
problem is even helped along inadvertently by the new read-only
"Wikipedia-zero" effect);
2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that technically don't lend
themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical
production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to make movies, how to
choreograph motion)
3) lack of topical expertise on subjects that legally don't lend themselves
well to the Wikiverse, such as articles about artworks under copyright that
cannot be illustrated in an article;
4) lack of topical editor coverage on subjects previously shut out - there
is still unwillingness by a whole group to re-enter the Wikiverse after
being banned (earlier shut-outs such as blocking whole institution-wide ip
ranges for vandalism or whole areas of expertise such as groups of writers
for their COI editing, carry with them a history of anti-Wikipedia
sentiment that lasts a long time in various enclaves)

___Claudia:
and, again, in which language version(s)?
That's easy - the languages that we can technically support but don't yet
have Wikipedias for and the languages for which we don't even have the
fonts to display them.

best,
Claudia


On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:41 AM,  wrote:

> Hi WereSpielChequers, Kerry, Aaron and all,
>
> WereSpielChequers wrote:
> "the community is more abrasive towards women"
>
> this may be stats expert discourse, but let me show you how the question
> itself has a gendered slant.
> imagine what would happen - also in your research design - if it read: "the
> community is less abrasive towards men" - how does this compare to the
> first question re who are "the community"?
>
> and again, re phasing ten years in 2011 and four years on, which language
> version(s) are hypotheses based on?
>
> Kerry wrote:
> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this
> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
> progress against that target, one has to question the point of
> establishing a
> target."
>
> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
> measuring the progress...
> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might
> add, in
> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation
> does
> not fund any top level research... - or does it?
>
> Aaron wrote:
> "higher quality survey data"
> well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so low?
> and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards?
>
> "causes and mechanisms that dr

Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[Kerry Raymond]

I agree the issues are not necessarily about male-female interactions. It
may be about bully-victim interactions. I often suspect we are seeing an
online form of 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

playing out, where anyone can choose to be the prison guard enforcing the
rules (of which we have plenty) taking advantage of the lack of real-world
accountability (thanks to pseudonymity).

However, in terms of any kind of metric to measure progress, I think
measuring Male/Female/DontKnow is a lot more viable than trying to count the
number of bullies and victims (or powerful vs less powerful). 

I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive to women, I rather suspect
we make it a more attractive place for everyone.

Kerry




___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l