Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Kerry Raymond]

I agree there are some systemic factors that may prevent us achieving 50-50 
male-female participation (or in these enlightened non-binary times 49-49-2). 
Studies continue to show that wives still spend more hours at domestic tasks 
than their husbands, even when both are in full-time employment, and clearly 
less free time is less time for Wikipedia. But still men now do more housework 
than they once did. (My husband would argue that I have never let housework 
take priority over Wikipedia, but maybe I'm not typical!). Similarly, we have 
not yet seen pay rates for women reach parity with men but they are moving 
closer. A gender balance of 90-10 that might once have been the norm in many 
occupations is now unusual. Wikipedia is a child of the 21st century; one might 
expect it to more closely reflect the societal norms of this century not the 
19th century.

Women use wikis like Confluence in workplaces without apparent difficulty. But 
I note that modern for-profit wikis have visual editing and tools that 
import/export from Word as normal modes of contribution.

I agree entirely with you about outreach and off-wiki activities. I said when 
there was the big push to "solve the women problem" by such events that it 
wouldn't make the difference because the problem is on-wiki. The majority of 
people who attend my training class and come to the events I support are women. 
It's not women can't do it. It's not that they don't want to do. As you say, 
it's just that it's such an unpleasant environment to do it in and that's what 
women don't like. For that matter, a lot of men don't like it either. 

What shall we write on Wikipedia's tombstone? "Wikipedia: an encyclopedia 
written by the most unpleasant people"?

Can one create cultural change? Yes, I've seen it done in organisations. You 
tell people what the new rules are, you illustrate with examples of acceptable 
and unacceptable behaviours. You offer a voluntary redundancy program for those 
who don't wish to stay and you make clear it that those who wish to stay and 
continue to engage in the unacceptable behaviours will be "managed out" through 
performance reviews. You run surveys that measure your culture throughout the 
whole process. Interestingly the cultural change almost always involved being 
less critical, more collaborative, less micromanaged, more goal-oriented, more 
self-starting, many of which I would say apply here (except perhaps for being 
more self-starting, I don't think that's our problem).

En.WP can change but WMF will have to take a stand and state what the new 
culture is going to be. En.WP will not change of its own accord; we have years 
of evidence to demonstrate that.

Kerry

-Original Message-
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
Behalf Of Jonathan Morgan
Sent: Friday, 21 September 2018 10:44 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities 

Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are 
published!

(Re: Jonathan's 'Chilling Effect' theory and Kerry's call for experiments to 
increase gender diversity)

Kerry: In a magic world, where I could experiment with anything I wanted to 
without having to get permission from communities, I would experiment with 
enforceable codes of conduct that covered a wider range of harassing and 
hostile behavior, coupled with robust & confidential incident reporting and 
review tools. But that's not really an 'experiment', that's a whole new 
social/software system.

I actually think we're beyond 'experiments' when it comes to increasing gender 
diversity. There are too many systemic factors working against increasing 
non-male participation. In order to do that you would need to increase newcomer 
retention dramatically, and we can barely move the needle there on EnWiki, for 
both social and technical reasons. But one non-technical intervention might be 
carefully revising and re-scope policies like WP:NOTSOCIAL that are often used 
to arbitrarily and aggressively shut down modes of communication, 
self-expression, and collaboration that don't fit so-and-so's idea of what it 
means to be Wikipedian.

Initiatives that start off wiki, like women-oriented edit-a-thons and outreach 
campaigns, are vitally important and could certainly be supported better in 
terms of maintaining a sense of community among participants once the event is 
over and they find they're now stuck alone in hostile wiki-territory. But I'm 
not sure what the best strategy is there, and these kind of initiatives are not 
large-scale enough to make a large overall impact on active editor numbers on 
their own, though they set important precedents, create infrastructure, change 
the conversation, and do lead to new editors.

The Community Health
 team just 
hired a new researcher who has lots of experience in the online harassment 
space. I don't feel comfortable 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!

[Jonathan Morgan]

(Re: Jonathan's 'Chilling Effect' theory and Kerry's call for experiments
to increase gender diversity)

Kerry: In a magic world, where I could experiment with anything I wanted to
without having to get permission from communities, I would experiment with
enforceable codes of conduct that covered a wider range of harassing and
hostile behavior, coupled with robust & confidential incident reporting and
review tools. But that's not really an 'experiment', that's a whole new
social/software system.

I actually think we're beyond 'experiments' when it comes to increasing
gender diversity. There are too many systemic factors working against
increasing non-male participation. In order to do that you would need to
increase newcomer retention dramatically, and we can barely move the needle
there on EnWiki, for both social and technical reasons. But one
non-technical intervention might be carefully revising and re-scope
policies like WP:NOTSOCIAL that are often used to arbitrarily and
aggressively shut down modes of communication, self-expression, and
collaboration that don't fit so-and-so's idea of what it means to be
Wikipedian.

Initiatives that start off wiki, like women-oriented edit-a-thons and
outreach campaigns, are vitally important and could certainly be supported
better in terms of maintaining a sense of community among participants once
the event is over and they find they're now stuck alone in hostile
wiki-territory. But I'm not sure what the best strategy is there, and these
kind of initiatives are not large-scale enough to make a large overall
impact on active editor numbers on their own, though they set important
precedents, create infrastructure, change the conversation, and do lead to
new editors.

The Community Health
 team
just hired a new researcher who has lots of experience in the online
harassment space. I don't feel comfortable announcing their name yet, since
they hasn't officially started, but I'll make sure they subscribe to this
list, and will point out this thread.

Jonathan: This study  is the
one I cite. There's a more recent--paywalled!--follow up
 (expansion?)
that I haven't read yet, but which may provide new insights. And this short
but powerful enthnographic study
. And this lab study
 on
the gendered perceptions of feedback and anonymity. And the--ancient, by
now--former contributors survey
,
which IIRC shows that conflict fatigue is a significant reason people
leave. And of course there's a mountain of credible evidence at this point
that antisocial behaviors drive away newcomers, irrespective of gender.

Thanks for raising these questions,

- J

On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 3:21 AM, Jonathan Cardy  wrote:

> Thanks Pine,
>
> In case I didn’t make it clear, I am very much of the camp that IP editing
> is our lifeline, the way we recruit new members. If someone isn’t happy
> with Citizendium et al as tests of that proposition then feel free to
> propose tests. I am open to being proved wrong if someone doesn’t mind
> wasting their time checking what seems obvious to me.
>
> Just please if you do so make sure you test for the babies that I fear
> would be thrown out with the bathwater, i.e the goodfaith newbies.
>
> I am not short of promising lines of enquiry, and more productive uses of
> my time. My choice for my time available for such things is which promising
> lines of enquiry to follow, and banning IPs isn’t one if them.
>
> One where we might have more agreement is over the default four warnings
> and a block for vandalism. I think it bonkers that we block edit warrers
> for a first offence but usually don’t block vandals till a fifth offence. I
> know that the four warnings and a block approach dates back to some of the
> earliest years on Wiki, but I am willing to bet that it wasn’t very
> scientifically arrived at, and that a study of the various behaviours that
> we treat this way would probably conclude that we could reduce the number
> of warnings for vandals, whilst we might want a longer dialogue with non
> neutral editors, copy pasters and those who add unsourced material.
> Afterall, many of our editors started without getting issues like
> neutrality, and whilst the few former vandals who we have don’t generally
> have a grudge that their early vandalism lead to a block, the same isn't
> always true of others.
>
> The other issue that could really use some research is on the chilling
> effect theory. Here the community is divided, some honestly believe that
> the high quality work of certain individuals justifies a certain level of
> snark, even to the point of harassment. Others, including myself, believe
> 

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Anonymous editing

[Kerry Raymond]

What was the conclusion? 

Kerry

-Original Message-
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
Behalf Of Andrew Lih
Sent: Friday, 21 September 2018 4:03 AM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities 

Cc: wiki-research-l-requ...@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Anonymous editing

This might be interesting, from Wikimania 2015

https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/The_Effect_of_Blocking_IP_Editing:_Evidence_from_Wikia

Video here:

https://archive.org/details/videoeditserver-92



On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:54 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello Kevin Crowston,
>
> THank you for the link. I have read your paper about the initial phase 
> and profited very much from it.
>
> My personal opinion on UP editing, not backed by research: IP editing 
> has negative social consequences for the community. This negative side 
> is not quite visible when only looking quantitatively at huge data.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> Kevin G Crowston  schrieb am Mi. 19. Sep. 2018 um 18:41:
>
> > Jonathan Cardy  > werespielchequ...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > In case I didn’t make it clear, I am very much of the camp that IP
> editing
> > is our lifeline, the way we recruit new members.
> >
> > Tangentially elated to this question, we have a forthcoming paper at 
> > the CSCW conference about how research conclusions change when 
> > anonymous work (e.g., IP editing) is taken into account. We looked 
> > at data from a
> citizen
> > science project. Short answer: it makes a difference.
> >
> > The paper isn’t up on the ACM DL yet, but you can see it here:
> > https://crowston.syr.edu/node/756
> >
> > Doing the study requires access to IP addresses for logged in users, 
> > so someone at WMF would have to do the study for Wikipedia, which 
> > would be really interesting and would speak to the question of 
> > whether IP editing
> is
> > a gateway to further editing.
> >
> >
> > Kevin Crowston
> > Associate Dean for Research, Distinguished Professor of Information
> Science
> > School of Information Studies
> >
> > +1 (315) 443.1676
> > crows...@syr.edu
> >
> > 348 Hinds Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244
> > crowston.syr.edu 
> >
> > Syracuse University
> > Most recent publication:  Kevin Crowston, Isabelle Fagnot. (2018). 
> > Stages of motivation for contributing user-generated content: A 
> > theory and empirical test. International Journal of Human-Computer 
> > Studies, 109, 89-101,  doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.08.005< 
> > http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.08.005> .
> >
> > Check out our new research coordination network on Work in the Age 
> > of Intelligent Machine:  http://waim.network/
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>


--
-Andrew Lih
Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016) Knight Foundation 
grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015) Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American University, 
Columbia University, USC
---
Email: and...@andrewlih.com
WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
___
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] Anonymous editing

[Andrew Lih]

This might be interesting, from Wikimania 2015

https://wikimania2015.wikimedia.org/wiki/Submissions/The_Effect_of_Blocking_IP_Editing:_Evidence_from_Wikia

Video here:

https://archive.org/details/videoeditserver-92



On Wed, Sep 19, 2018 at 12:54 PM Ziko van Dijk  wrote:

> Hello Kevin Crowston,
>
> THank you for the link. I have read your paper about the initial phase and
> profited very much from it.
>
> My personal opinion on UP editing, not backed by research: IP editing has
> negative social consequences for the community. This negative side is not
> quite visible when only looking quantitatively at huge data.
>
> Kind regards
> Ziko
>
>
>
> Kevin G Crowston  schrieb am Mi. 19. Sep. 2018 um 18:41:
>
> > Jonathan Cardy  > werespielchequ...@gmail.com>> wrote:
> >
> > In case I didn’t make it clear, I am very much of the camp that IP
> editing
> > is our lifeline, the way we recruit new members.
> >
> > Tangentially elated to this question, we have a forthcoming paper at the
> > CSCW conference about how research conclusions change when anonymous work
> > (e.g., IP editing) is taken into account. We looked at data from a
> citizen
> > science project. Short answer: it makes a difference.
> >
> > The paper isn’t up on the ACM DL yet, but you can see it here:
> > https://crowston.syr.edu/node/756
> >
> > Doing the study requires access to IP addresses for logged in users, so
> > someone at WMF would have to do the study for Wikipedia, which would be
> > really interesting and would speak to the question of whether IP editing
> is
> > a gateway to further editing.
> >
> >
> > Kevin Crowston
> > Associate Dean for Research, Distinguished Professor of Information
> Science
> > School of Information Studies
> >
> > +1 (315) 443.1676
> > crows...@syr.edu
> >
> > 348 Hinds Hall, Syracuse, NY 13244
> > crowston.syr.edu 
> >
> > Syracuse University
> > Most recent publication:  Kevin Crowston, Isabelle Fagnot. (2018). Stages
> > of motivation for contributing user-generated content: A theory and
> > empirical test. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 109,
> > 89-101,  doi: 10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.08.005<
> > http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2017.08.005> .
> >
> > Check out our new research coordination network on Work in the Age of
> > Intelligent Machine:  http://waim.network/
> >
> > ___
> > 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
>


-- 
-Andrew Lih
Author of The Wikipedia Revolution
US National Archives Citizen Archivist of the Year (2016)
Knight Foundation grant recipient - Wikipedia Space (2015)
Wikimedia DC - Outreach and GLAM
Previously: professor of journalism and communications, American
University, Columbia University, USC
---
Email: and...@andrewlih.com
WEB: https://muckrack.com/fuzheado
PROJECT: Wikipedia Space: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:WPSPACE
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

[Wiki-research-l] [Presentation in 20 min] Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey

[Edward Galvez]

Hi everyone,

The presentation about this report will start in 30 minutes. We will be
watching the youtube stream and IRC for your comments or questions.

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc


Thanks!
Edward


-- Forwarded message -
From: Edward Galvez 
Date: Thu, Sep 13, 2018 at 3:59 PM
Subject: Results from 2018 global Wikimedia survey are published!
To:


Hi everyone,

I'm excited to share that our annual survey about Wikimedia communities is
now published!

This survey included 170 questions and reaches over 4,000 community
members across
four audiences: Contributors, Affiliate organizers, Program Organizers, and
Volunteer Developers. This survey helps us hear from the experience of
Wikimedians from across the movement so that teams are able to use
community feedback in their planning and their work. This survey also helps
us learn about long term changes in communities, such as community health
or demographics.

The report is available on meta:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Community_Engagement_Insights/2018_Report

For this survey, we worked with 11 teams to develop the questions. Once the
results were analyzed, we spent time with each team to help them understand
their results. Most teams have already identified how they will use the
results to help improve their work to support you.

The report could be useful for your work in the Wikimedia movement as well!
What are you learning from the data? Take some time to read the report and
share your feedback on the talk pages. We have also published a blog that
you can read.[1]

We are hosting a livestream presentation[2] on September 20 at 1600 UTC.
Hope to see you there!

Feel free to email me directly with any questions.

All the best,
Edward


[1]
https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/09/13/what-we-learned-surveying-4000-community-members/
[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGQtWFP9Cjc


-- 
Edward Galvez
Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
Learning & Evaluation
Community Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation

-- 
Edward Galvez
Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
Learning & Evaluation
Community Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation


-- 
Edward Galvez
Evaluation Strategist, Surveys
Learning & Evaluation
Community Engagement
Wikimedia Foundation
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l