Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

[Sam Katz]

Let me comment on the original question. The correct citation is typically
the oldest one known to the researcher, not the most popular.

On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 1:42 PM, Gerard Meijssen 
wrote:

> Hoi,
> I am truly happy that Wikidata is its own master. When a Wikipedia has
> certain policies it is welcome to it. As long as they do not use Wikidata
> to improve the quality of its content [1] and by the same token improve the
> data at Wikidata, I am not interested what a Wikipedia does.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> [1]
> http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2016/01/wikipedia-lowest-hanging-fruit-from.html
>
> On 28 February 2016 at 20:31, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:
>
>> Wikidata appears to allow original research and the inference of gender
>> from the name or photo of the subject. It will be a cold day in hell before
>> en.wiki allows this, see [[WP:RS]] and .[[WP:OR]].
>>
>> cheers
>> stuart
>> --
>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Jane Darnell  wrote:
>>
>>> But there have also been lots of corrections. As far as painters go, the
>>> data is really pretty decent now. It helps that it's really easy to check
>>> the state of Wikidata against the contents of Wikipedia categories. As more
>>> people become aware of how to make such checks, I think we start to see a
>>> cleanup of categories and (I hope) a better categorization system starting
>>> to form that is more  in line with Wikidata property class trees.
>>>
>>> On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 8:04 PM, Stuart A. Yeates 
>>> wrote:
>>>
 Data has been sucked from GND to wikidata via a number of routes,
 principally VIAF.
 See Wikidata:Bot_requests#Import_GND_identifiers_from_VIAF_dump for example
 for a discussion of an instance of this.

 cheers
 stuart

 --
 ...let us be heard from red core to black sky

 On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:50 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hoi,
> The blog states that a lot of data was sucked into Wikidata from GND.
> As far as I am aware that never happened. So its assertion is wrong.
> Thanks,
>   GerardM
>
> On 28 February 2016 at 19:43, Stuart A. Yeates 
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> --
>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 7:14 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
>> gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hoi,
>>> It is trivial when you only consider Wikidata.
>>>
>>
>> I've previous blogged about the issues with sex / gender in wikidata
>> at
>> http://opensourceexile.blogspot.co.nz/2014/07/adrian-pohl-wrote-some-excellent.html
>> has the sitaution moved on?
>>
>> cheers
>> stuart
>>
>> ___
>> 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
>
>

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Visual Editor experiment might have a problem ...

[Sam Katz]

No, you don't need CAPTCHA. You can use Honeypot. I think that would fix it.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Jonathan Morgan 
wrote:

> No, I'm not aware of any ongoing CAPTCHA work. There was a long thread on
> wikitech-l starting last December ("Our CAPTCHA is very unfriendly") that
> resulted in some Phabricator tasks and a wikipage. But I don't know of any
> active development plans.
>
> By the way: Aaron's in transition (of the timezone variety) right now, so
> it may be a day or so before he's able to respond to this thread.
>
> - J
>
> On Sun, Aug 16, 2015 at 10:53 PM, Pine W  wrote:
>
>> I thought that someone was already working on CAPTCHA improvents, but I
>> can't remember who, and I haven't heard anything recently which makes me
>> wonder if this was de-prioritized.
>>
>> J-mo, do you happen to know the status of the CAPTCHA work is, and who,
>> if anyone, is active on that project?
>>
>> Pine
>> On Aug 16, 2015 10:41 PM, "WereSpielChequers" <
>> werespielchequ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Kerry,
>>>
>>> there is an experiment going on that randomly opts half if new users
>>> into V/E and leaves half using the classic editor. That should account for
>>> why one of your newbies had been opted in but not the other.
>>>
>>> Captcha when adding citations is a longstanding problem, we need Captcha
>>> on account creation to keep the spam bots at bay, but somehow it also
>>> applies to newbies adding external links as cites, so we have a software
>>> feature that doesn't effect the vandals but instead targets the best of our
>>> newbies. My suspicion is that if we could work out when that was introduced
>>> and then compare it to subsequent recruitment and retention we would find
>>> that this was one of the most damaging mistakes we've made.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards
>>>
>>> Jonathan
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17 Aug 2015, at 04:56, Kerry Raymond  wrote:
>>>
>>> I ran my first training session using the Visual Editor this morning and
>>> hit what appeared to be a show-shopping bug. It appeared that the two new
>>> users (thankfully I had only 2) could not create a citation. They found
>>> themselves in an infinite loop of Save Page with Capcha when they tried to
>>> create a citation.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> By the end of the session, I managed to refine the bug to a combination
>>> of “new user”, “new article” (although created by me, not the new users),
>>> and citations involving a live URL, duly reported at
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback#New_users_unable_to_create_citation_with_a_live_external_link_in_it
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Ironically it first happened on their newly created User Pages where we
>>> were practising our new Wikipedia skills because tackling “real articles”.
>>> Then on the “real articles” I had created earlier for them to use (a
>>> training approach that has the benefit of not unleashing a horde of angry
>>> watchlisters when they make some silly mistake, which occurs if you let new
>>> people make their early edits on “popular articles”). (Spot the pattern,
>>> both were new articles!).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Now if this had happened to a new user sitting at home, they would have
>>> been stymied. Because I was there to hold their hands in a training
>>> setting, I found a way around the problem by logging them in as me and we
>>> continued the training session on that basis (but not an option to the user
>>> sitting at home frustratingly typing in Capcha responses until they got
>>> frustrated and walked away).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> So, Aaron, it may be that your research on the impact of the VE was
>>> impacted by this bug. I imagine that users affected would have eventually
>>> aborted the edit as they were unable to save, unless by chance they were
>>> able to realise that the problem was caused by their citation and either
>>> removed the citation and just saved the text changes. It’s hard to say what
>>> the likelihood of a new user being affected is, as the problem seemed to
>>> relate to the age of the article (I am autopatrolled so I don’t think the
>>> new articles would have any “might be dodgy” status flags on them, but I am
>>> not familiar with how that side of things works).
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Also, is this experiment (or one similar) currently running? It’s just
>>> that when we went into the Preferences of the two new user accounts to
>>> enable the VE, one of them already had it enabled (yet I had seen both new
>>> user accounts created in front of me a couple of minutes earlier), so there
>>> was no possibility that this was anything other than a default setting for
>>> one of the two users. I thought enabling the VE was normally strictly
>>> opt-in?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Kerry
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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-

Re: [Wiki-research-l] "identity disclosure hurt the reliability of review systems, but not necessarily efforts provision"

[Sam Katz]

I assume they mean whether we use identity disclosure mechanisms. And the
answer is, to do so would compromise the anonymity on which many of our
submitter's depend.

That is a better question for wikileaks, though perhaps coming at it in not
quite the angle you were expecting, or yelp, or google.

On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Jonathan Morgan 
wrote:

> Replicated it how?
>
> Jonathan
>
> On Wed, Aug 12, 2015 at 3:06 AM, James Salsman  wrote:
>
>> Has anyone replicated the experiment described in
>> http://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2015/e-Biz/GeneralPresentations/11/
>> yet?
>>
>>
>> ___
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan T. Morgan
> Senior Design Researcher
> Wikimedia Foundation
> User:Jmorgan (WMF) 
>
>
> ___
> 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] Aaron Swartz Hypothesis on Wikipedia Authorship

[Sam Katz]

Cory Doctorow may have talked about it...

On Tue, Jun 23, 2015 at 9:46 AM, Krzysztof Gajewski
 wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I wonder if you know if somebody verified and / or further researched
> Aaron Swartz's thesis on structure of Wikipedia participation. You can
> find it here: http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia
>
> Best,
> Krzysztof Gajewski
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: Traffic to the portal from Zero providers

[Sam Katz]

hey guys, you can't guess geolocation, because occasionally you'd be
wrong. this happens to me all the time. I want to read a site in
spanish... and then it thinks I'm in Latin America, when I'm not.

--Sam

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 10:07 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> Possibly. But that sounds potentially wooly and sometimes inaccurate.
>
> When a browser makes a web request, it sends a header called the
> accept_language header
> (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_HTTP_header_fields#Accept-Language)
> which indicates what languages the browser finds ideal - i.e., what
> languages the user and system are using.
>
> If we're going to make modifications here (I hope we will. But again;
> early days) I don't see a good argument for using geolocation, which
> is, as you've noted, flawed without substantial time and energy being
> applied to map those countries to "probable" languages. The data the
> browser already sends to the server contains the /certain/ languages.
> We can just use that.
>
> On 6 May 2015 at 22:50, Stuart A. Yeates  wrote:
>> This seems like a great place to use analytics data, for each division
>> in the geo-location classification, rank each of the languages by
>> usage and present the top N as likely candidates (+ browser settings)
>> when we need the user to pick a language.
>>
>> cheers
>> stuart
>> --
>> ...let us be heard from red core to black sky
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 7, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Mark J. Nelson  wrote:
>>>
>>> Stuart A. Yeates  writes:
>>>
 Reading that excellent presentation, the thought that struck me was:

 "If I wanted to subvert the assumption that Wikipedia == en.wiki,
 linking to http://www.wikipedia.org/ is what I'd do."

 A smarter http://www.wikipedia.org/ might guess geo-location and thus
 local languages.
>>>
>>> I'd also like to see something smarter done at the main page, but the
>>> "and thus" bit here is notoriously tricky.
>>>
>>> For example most geolocation-based things, like Wikidata by default,
>>> tend to produce funny results in Denmark. A Copenhagener is offered
>>> something like this choice, in order:
>>>
>>> * Danish, Greelandic, Faroese, Swedish, German, ...
>>>
>>> The reasoning here is that Danish, Greenlandic, and Faroese are official
>>> languages of the Danish Realm, which includes both Denmark proper, and
>>> two autonomous territories, Greeland and the Faroe Islands. And then
>>> Sweden and Germany are the two neighboring countries.
>>>
>>> But for the average Copenhagener, the following order is far more
>>> likely:
>>>
>>> * Danish, English, Norwegian Bokmål, ...
>>>
>>> The reason here is that Norwegian Bokmål is very close to Danish in
>>> written form (more than Swedish is, and especially more than Faroese is)
>>> while English is a widely used semi-official language in business,
>>> government, and education (for example about half of university theses
>>> are now written in English, and several major companies use it as their
>>> official workplace language).
>>>
>>> I think it's possible to come up with something that better aligns with
>>> readers' actual preferences, but it's not easy!
>>>
>>> -Mark
>>>
>>> --
>>> Mark J. Nelson
>>> Anadrome Research
>>> http://www.kmjn.org
>>>
>>> ___
>>> 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
>
>
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Research Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> 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] Fwd: Traffic to the portal from Zero providers

[Sam Katz]

hey oliver,

I don't mean to be a help vampire...

but what is zero traffic? you think the traffic is being proxied?
perhaps even reverse proxied?

--Sam

On Wed, May 6, 2015 at 1:40 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> Cross-posting to research and analytics, too!
>
>
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Oliver Keyes 
> Date: 6 May 2015 at 13:11
> Subject: Traffic to the portal from Zero providers
> To: wikimedia-sea...@lists.wikimedia.org
>
>
> Hey all,
>
> (Throwing this to the public list, because transparency is Good)
>
> I recently did a presentation on a traffic analysis to the Wikipedia
> "home page" - www.wikipedia.org.[1]
>
> One of the biggest visualisations, in impact terms, showed that a lot
> of portal traffic - far more, proportionately, than traffic to
> Wikipedia overall - is coming from India and Brazil.[2] One of the
> hypotheses was that this could be Zero traffic.
>
> I've done a basic analysis of the traffic, looking specifically at the
> zero headers,[3] and this hypothesis turns out to be incorrect -
> almost no zero traffic is hitting the portal. The traffic we're seeing
> from Brazil and India is not zero-based.
>
> This makes a lot of sense (the reason mobile traffic redirects to the
> enwiki home page from the portal is the Zero extension, so presumably
> this happens specifically to Zero traffic) but it does mean that our
> null hypothesis - that this traffic is down to ISP-level or
> device-level design choices and links - is more likely to be correct.
>
> [1] http://ironholds.org/misc/homepage_presentation.html
> [2] http://ironholds.org/misc/homepage_presentation.html#/11
> [3] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T98076
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Research Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
>
> --
> Oliver Keyes
> Research Analyst
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> ___
> 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

[Sam Katz]

It is our job to improve wikipedia.

I hope we do that.

Frames I assume you mean linguistic frames.

I think in order to record or track gender pronouns on wikipedia you
have to have a compelling reason to do it, not a compelling reason not
to. There is no reason to identify users -- we agree on that that's
why we allow anonymous submissions. I think any personal identifier is
a really bad idea -- ask the EFF if you don't believe me.

I've made my case. It should in theory not be pushed aside by some
academic ivory tower spiel. But I'll refer my case somewhere else... I
think for the trans community this is pretty important, as well as for
people posting from other countries where 'bias' means death.

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Oliver Keyes  wrote:
> Sam,
>
> So, gender display online != gender display offline, but knowing
> gender online == knowing gender offline? That's not how frames work.
>
> Does knowing someone's gender increase bias? Probably. Because it's a
> biased and gendered environment we've found ourselves with. Does not
> knowing someone's gender remove bias? Not in the slightest - because
> area effect microaggressions are a thing, and a community built by one
> demographic has processes and standards optimised /for/ that
> demographic and /away/ from a lot of others.
>
> This idea - that women were the first to adopt pen names and so it's
> possible to avoid microaggressions and bias if you simply stay
> anonymous - is discriminatory in and of itself (if we have an
> environment where women have to hide who they are to contribute, the
> problem is the environment. Do not put the burden and responsibility
> of avoiding the discrimination on the people suffering from it).
> Moreover, people won't actually avoid the gender bias, just the
> extremes of it, because structures still exert their own bias.
>
> And, yes, structures /might/ not impose gender bias. But our
> structures /do/, implicitly and explicitly, in a million ways. When we
> have male pronouns as the default, when we have a system that is
> totally ignorant of the differences in sociological conditioning
> between different demographics (we have adversarial dispute resolution
> procedures and a clinical inability to control aggressive users. How
> do you think that meshes with Western, at least, gender
> essentialism?), we have a structure imposing gender bias.
>
> And that's the structure that we have, and arguing that there might be
> a universe in which this doesn't happen is not a useful argument to
> make. It's akin to dealing with an inferno in an apartment building by
> showing up and pointing out that, /strictly speaking/, buildings don't
> /have/ to be on fire. It's, you know, true, and that's nice, but it's
> not particularly applicable when our building quite clearly /is/ on
> fire.
>
> So let's get back to brainstorming on how we improve the data we have
> in this field, and our understanding of the dynamics and biases and
> makeup of the community, and away from "there could be a community
> somewhere where these problems are moot", please.
>
> On 7 March 2015 at 16:05, Sam Katz  wrote:
>> people's gender. does knowing someone's gender increase bias? My guess
>> based on the real life experiments is yes.
>>
>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:23 PM,   wrote:
>>> when what is known? gender discrimination?
>>>
>>> -- Original Message ---
>>> From:Sam Katz 
>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>> 
>>> Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:28:55 -0600
>>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>>> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>
>>>> does a wiki have single authorship (like the
>>>> original britannica) or multiple authorship? does
>>>> it value anonymity? is gender discrimination more
>>>> likely when it is known?
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM,
>>>>  wrote:
>>>> >> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>>>> >
>>>> > why not for a wiki like Wikipedia?
>>>> >
>>>> > and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a
>>> ton harder" to deal
>>>> > with?
>>>> >
>>>> > thanks,
>>>> > Claudia
>>>> >
>>>> > -- Original Message ---
>>>> > From:Sam Katz 
>>>> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>> >>> > l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>&

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

[Sam Katz]

will also note that in terms of interface biases,
>> >> >>  Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
>> >> >> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
>> >> >> show what users have posted do worse than
>> >> >> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
>> >> >> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
>> >> >> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
>> >> >> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
>> >> >> an important discussion to have.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
>> >> >>  wrote:
>> >> >> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely
> in real
>> >> > life and online.
>> >> >> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters
> addressed
>> >> > to "Dr Sir" etc.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real
> life,
>> >> > it has got somewhat
>> >> >> > better over the years. But getting involved in
> Wikipedia
>> >> > and its discussions
>> >> >> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we
> really
>> >> > have a gender gap?"
>> >> >> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > Kerry
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > -Original Message-
>> >> >> > From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> >> >
> [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> >> > Behalf Of Sam Katz
>> >> >> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
>> >> >> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> >> >> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
> gender
>> >> > stats Re: Fwd:
>> >> >> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > hey,
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that
> gender
>> >> > expression
>> >> >> > online or indeed expression in general is the same
> as it
>> >> > is in real
>> >> >> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are
>> >> > trying to
>> >> >> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that
>> >> > indeed it may not
>> >> >> > have a gender bias directly if the structure does not
>> >> > impose it.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM,  
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> >> Hi Frances,
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language
> where
>> >> >> >> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
>> >> >> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it
>> >> > from a
>> >> >> >> new dummy account.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and
> especially so
>> >> >> >> because community majority has not seen to
> changing that
>> >> >> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my
> cautious note
>> >> >> >> on gender stats
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> best,
>> >> >> >> Claudia
>> >> >> >> -- Original Message ---
>> >> >> >> From:Frances Hocutt 
>> >> >> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> >> >> >> 
>> >> >> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
>> >> >> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
> gender
>> >> >> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >

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

[Sam Katz]

does a wiki have single authorship (like the original britannica) or
multiple authorship? does it value anonymity? is gender discrimination
more likely when it is known?

On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM,   wrote:
>> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>
> why not for a wiki like Wikipedia?
>
> and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a ton harder" to deal
> with?
>
> thanks,
> Claudia
>
> -- Original Message ---
> From:Sam Katz 
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities  l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:22 -0600
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
>> It seems to me you are extrapolating from
>> insufficient data. identity and presentation are
>> not the same thing, but I guess the question in
>> this context is "what is presentation in an online
>> setting?" "how is gender shown in an online setting?"
>>
>> That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have
>> "in a wiki like wikipedia" and it's a ton harder.
>>
>> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>>
>> --Sam
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM,
>>  wrote:
>> > yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting
>> >
>> > in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably more
>> > important than how the attacked user might identify (or not)
>> >
>> > and again, this might be one of the reasons why people
>> > identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining surveys
>> > and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they "are" -
>> > just like many others who do not identify as (e.g.,
>> > heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less safe if
>> > they say anything about their gender/s or sexual
>> > identity/identities... how come?
>> >
>> > sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in hegemonic
>> > positions would be willing to switch perspectives for a
>> > minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than 20%" -
>> > posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done away with,
>> > I guess
>> >
>> > as for another attempt at switching one's perspective, who
>> > are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or fluid
>> > identities, maybe?
>> >
>> > best, Claudia
>> >
>> > -- Original Message ---
>> > From:Sam Katz 
>> > To:kerry.raym...@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia content
>> > and communities 
>> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600
>> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>> > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >
>> >> To those following:
>> >> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The
>> >> question of whether written communication has a
>> >> different way of relating than oral, in the
>> >> context of a wiki, which by definition is
>> >> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous
>> >> editing, is a valid question.
>> >>
>> >> Anonymity and pen names were first used often
>> >> times by women.
>> >>
>> >> I will also note that in terms of interface biases,
>> >>  Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
>> >> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
>> >> show what users have posted do worse than
>> >> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
>> >> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
>> >>
>> >> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
>> >> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
>> >> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
>> >> an important discussion to have.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
>> >>  wrote:
>> >> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
>> >> >
>> >> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely in real
>> > life and online.
>> >> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters addressed
>> > to "Dr Sir" etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real life,
>> > it has got somewhat
>> >> > better over the years. But getting involved in Wikipedia
>> > and its discussions
>> >> > a

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

[Sam Katz]

It seems to me you are extrapolating from insufficient data. identity
and presentation are not the same thing, but I guess the question in
this context is "what is presentation in an online setting?" "how is
gender shown in an online setting?"

That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have "in a wiki like
wikipedia" and it's a ton harder.

I would prefer we not track gender at all.

--Sam

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM,   wrote:
> yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting
>
> in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably more
> important than how the attacked user might identify (or not)
>
> and again, this might be one of the reasons why people
> identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining surveys
> and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they "are" -
> just like many others who do not identify as (e.g.,
> heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less safe if
> they say anything about their gender/s or sexual
> identity/identities... how come?
>
> sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in hegemonic
> positions would be willing to switch perspectives for a
> minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than 20%" -
> posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done away with,
> I guess
>
> as for another attempt at switching one's perspective, who
> are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or fluid
> identities, maybe?
>
> best, Claudia
>
> -- Original Message ---
> From:Sam Katz 
> To:kerry.raym...@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia content
> and communities 
> Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
>> To those following:
>> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The
>> question of whether written communication has a
>> different way of relating than oral, in the
>> context of a wiki, which by definition is
>> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous
>> editing, is a valid question.
>>
>> Anonymity and pen names were first used often
>> times by women.
>>
>> I will also note that in terms of interface biases,
>>  Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
>> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
>> show what users have posted do worse than
>> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
>> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
>>
>> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
>> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
>> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
>> an important discussion to have.
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
>>  wrote:
>> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
>> >
>> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely in real
> life and online.
>> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters addressed
> to "Dr Sir" etc.
>> >
>> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real life,
> it has got somewhat
>> > better over the years. But getting involved in Wikipedia
> and its discussions
>> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we really
> have a gender gap?"
>> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
>> >
>> > Kerry
>> >
>> > -Original Message-
>> > From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> > [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> Behalf Of Sam Katz
>> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
>> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> stats Re: Fwd:
>> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >
>> > hey,
>> >
>> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that gender
> expression
>> > online or indeed expression in general is the same as it
> is in real
>> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are
> trying to
>> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that
> indeed it may not
>> > have a gender bias directly if the structure does not
> impose it.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM,  
> wrote:
>> >> Hi Frances,
>> >>
>> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language where
>> >> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
>> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it
> from a
>> 

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

[Sam Katz]

To those following:
I think this is a valid question I am raising. The question of whether
written communication has a different way of relating than oral, in
the context of a wiki, which by definition is collaborative, tracks
users but allows anonymous editing, is a valid question.

Anonymity and pen names were first used often times by women.

I will also note that in terms of interface biases, Facebook and other
platforms (Acquia Commons) that use photos of their users as
adornments, to show what users have posted do worse than wikipedia in
terms of encouraging safety and courage ("be bold in editing") among
their users.

Clarifying what the question is in this thread is a good first step
towards answering it. If I was confused, I stand corrected, but I
believe this is an important discussion to have.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond  wrote:
> Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
>
> As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely in real life and online.
> Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters addressed to "Dr Sir" etc.
>
> Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real life, it has got somewhat
> better over the years. But getting involved in Wikipedia and its discussions
> about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we really have a gender gap?"
> "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
>
> Kerry
>
> -Original Message-
> From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Sam Katz
> Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
> hey,
>
> I just want to note that I am not convinced that gender expression
> online or indeed expression in general is the same as it is in real
> space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are trying to
> prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that indeed it may not
> have a gender bias directly if the structure does not impose it.
>
> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM,   wrote:
>> Hi Frances,
>>
>> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language where
>> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
>> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it from a
>> new dummy account.
>>
>> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and especially so
>> because community majority has not seen to changing that
>> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
>>
>> so this adds another item of disharmony to my cautious note
>> on gender stats
>>
>> best,
>> Claudia
>> -- Original Message ---
>> From:Frances Hocutt 
>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> 
>> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>
>>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
>>>  wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> > Frances Hocutt  writes:
>>> >
>>> > > One change that could address the latter incentive is
>> to change the
>>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical
>> gender is not the
>>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly assigned,
>> and then some men
>>> > as
>>> > > well as some women would have the incentive to set
>> their gender
>>> > preferences.
>>> >
>>> > That's how it currently works, according to the manual,
>> with the default
>>> > gender set to 'unknown':
>>> > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
>>> >
>>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in
>> effect on
>>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
>>> >
>>>
>>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
>>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
>>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
>>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
>>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
>>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
>>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
>>> to be described accurately where a female user
>>> would need to set her gender in order to be
>>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
>>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
>>> differen

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

[Sam Katz]

hey,

I just want to note that I am not convinced that gender expression
online or indeed expression in general is the same as it is in real
space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are trying to
prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that indeed it may not
have a gender bias directly if the structure does not impose it.

On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM,   wrote:
> Hi Frances,
>
> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language where
> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it from a
> new dummy account.
>
> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and especially so
> because community majority has not seen to changing that
> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
>
> so this adds another item of disharmony to my cautious note
> on gender stats
>
> best,
> Claudia
> -- Original Message ---
> From:Frances Hocutt 
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> 
> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
>>  wrote:
>>
>> >
>> > Frances Hocutt  writes:
>> >
>> > > One change that could address the latter incentive is
> to change the
>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical
> gender is not the
>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly assigned,
> and then some men
>> > as
>> > > well as some women would have the incentive to set
> their gender
>> > preferences.
>> >
>> > That's how it currently works, according to the manual,
> with the default
>> > gender set to 'unknown':
>> > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
>> >
>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in
> effect on
>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
>> >
>>
>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
>> to be described accurately where a female user
>> would need to set her gender in order to be
>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
>>
>> -Frances
> --- 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] [Foundation-l] Fundraising is for men

[Sam Katz]

I have a significant problem with making assumptions before you start your
research. Control for confirmation bias. Be careful. Also, keep in mind
that some wikipedia articles may appeal more to a specific demographic than
others. Also, editing wikipedia is still highly technical due to
formatting, though has gotten a lot better.

--Sam

On Tue, Nov 29, 2011 at 4:19 PM, emijrp  wrote:

> 2011/11/29 Thomas Dalton 
>
>> On 29 November 2011 21:51, emijrp  wrote:
>> > Dear all;
>> >
>> > We have heard many times that most Wikipedians are male, but have you
>> heard
>> > about gender and fundraising? Some data from a 2010 study[1] and a 2011
>> > German study[2] (question 20th of 22). People have said that Wikipedia
>> is a
>> > sexist place which excludes women to edit. Looks like women neither are
>> > interested on editing nor funding free knowledge.
>> >
>> > Is WMF working to increase female donors just like female editors?
>>
>> I think the first step would be to try and figure out if women are
>> visiting the site and not donating or just not visiting at all.
>>
>>
> So, the first step would be to try and figure out if women are visiting
> the site and not editing or just not visiting at all, before saying
> nonsense about sexism and Wikipedia community.
>
>
>> You would also want to make sure there really is a significant
>> imbalance and that it's not just that men are more likely to fill out
>> the survey form.
>>
>>
> That affects to all surveys, again.
>
> Looks like people only care about surveys which say what they want to read.
>
>
>> ___
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundatio...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
>
>
> ___
> 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] Article on teaching with wikipedia - where to publish?

[Sam Katz]

I just wanted to say that Sage is the most cooperative publisher when it
comes to electronic distribution and ADA accommodation. I like them.

--Sam

On Fri, May 20, 2011 at 9:44 AM, Sage Ross wrote:

> On Thu, May 19, 2011 at 6:47 PM, Chitu Okoli 
> wrote:
> > Hi Piotr,
>
> > I looked up Teaching Sociology, and found that they are in the Sage
> journals
> > family. Sage recently launched a hybrid policy, called "Sage Choice":
> > http://www.sagepub.com/sagechoice.sp. This describes what I'm talking
> about:
> > if the author pays the bounty to release an article from journal jail,
> the
> > publisher will gladly go open access--for that article only. Sage's rate
> is
> > $3,000. Other journal prices I've seen are typically in the $2,000 to
> $3,000
> > range per article. This is the fair market price of publishing in a
> > high-quality open access journal (e.g.
> > http://www.plos.org/journals/pubfees.php).
>
> I'd say avoid Sage if at all possible.  They are one of the publishers
> involved in this craziness:
>
> http://blogs.library.duke.edu/scholcomm/2011/05/13/a-nightmare-scenario-for-higher-education/
>
> Sage is one of the publishers (along with Cambridge and Oxford) suing
> a university over copyright infringement and asking for an injunction
> that would essentially obliterate fair use at that university.
>
> -Sage (not the publisher!)
>
> ___
> 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] math learning online

[Sam Katz]

also, www.purplemath.com
the sparknotes math guides
and esp. hotmath.com (which is the closest to what you mean)

On Tue, Nov 23, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Amy Bruckman
wrote:

> Joe,
>
> You might want to look at The Math Forum, http://mathforum.org
>
> In particular, check out the Problem of the Week and Ask Dr. Math.  Answers
> to Problem of the Week and questions to Ask Dr. Math are answered by
> volunteers, who try to guide the students to understanding rather than
> handing them answers.  They have an impressive architecture to triage
> questions. When the perfect answer has already been written, it gets sent.
> New questions are sent to live humans.
>
> Their work is really impressive. So I would start your research with the
> question: What can I do even better than Math Forum?
>
> Hope this helps!
>
> -- Amy
>
> On Nov 23, 2010, at 8:16 AM, Joe Corneli wrote:
>
> So far, the best phrasing I've come up with is: "What stands in the
>
> way of building and supplying low-cost, high-quality mathematics
>
> education via the internet?"
>
>
> The art of encyclopedia-building doesn't seem to carry over directly
>
> to education.  This should be of fairly general concern (the Wikimedia
>
> Foundation's mission is about developing and disseminating educational
>
> content).
>
>
> I think there's a knowledge gap in there, maybe more than one.  It's
>
> much easier for me to think about "engineering solutions" than it is
>
> to precisely specify a research problem question!!  In particular, I'm
>
> thinking about
>
>
> (a) building interactive textbooks that work for self-guided learners
>
> (b) building technologies to support live tutorials over the web
>
> (c) building infrastructure to help in developing good survey articles
>
> or similar content
>
>
> The faculty here might want me to "pick one", but this is hard for me
>
> to do because I see each of these three approaches as being part of
>
> the puzzle.  Asking how well one of them works in absence of the other
>
> is a bit like asking how well a fish can breathe in the absence of
>
> water.
>
>
> So maybe the "research question" is about asking: What is the family
>
> resemblance of (a)-(c)?  How do they work together as a system?  Or
>
> maybe the question is about whether a given implementation of (a)-(c)
>
> shows any promise?
>
>
> I seem to be struggling to switch from a hacking-oriented way of
>
> thinking about things to a research-oriented way of thinking about
>
> things.  I'd appreciate some feedback from those of you in a position
>
> to offer advice on these matters.
>
>
> ___
>
> 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
>
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia Article Editing History

[Sam Katz]

You are to be commended on your understanding of the technology and
methodology.

Could you do some qualitative work to try and hone in on the motivations of
your sample?

--Sam

On Sun, Oct 3, 2010 at 7:51 PM, Laura Hale  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Oct 4, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Steven Walling 
> wrote:
>
>> HI Laura,
>>
>> There is no publicly-accessible tool that provides the IP address/location
>> of logged in users of Wikimedia projects. The CheckUser extension can
>> provide the IPs used by any user account, but it is only used for a *very
>> * narrow set of purposes as part of Wikimedia's privacy policy.
>>
>> I'm just looking at IP address edits that are publicly available on
> Wikipedia history pages.  As for the location of logged in users, that is
> easy enough to get from
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedians_by_location .  It just
> has to be accepted, when doing research like that, that the data set won't
> be complete for all logged in users.  And even for IP address edits, that
> location is nominally nothing more than an educated guess... especially when
> you're looking for edits from a country like New Zealand, where they don't
> have a dedicated IP address range.
>
>
> --
> twitter: purplepopple
> blog: ozziesport.com
>
>
> ___
> 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] Wikimedia and cyberstalking

[Sam Katz]

Sarah,

I was a former student at Earlham College. I have made a series of approved
(sustained) edits to that page. I was recently contacted by a current
student in a manner that I would describe as cyberstalking. They did not
exclusively use wikipedia, but it was a jumping off point.

Please contact me personally and I will be happy to fill you in.

On 9/5/07, Slim Virgin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> I'm writing a paper on cyberstalking and harassment, which I hope to
> hand to the Foundation with a view to educating people about the
> extent of the problem on Wikimedia.
>
> I'd like to include some concrete examples of the cyberstalking or
> offline stalking of users as a result of their participation in any of
> the Wikimedia projects, and particularly where the target was picked
> on because they were an administrator.
>
> If you've been a target of this yourself, or if you know someone who
> has, I'd appreciate hearing from you at slimvirgin at gmail dot com.
> All replies will be received in strictest confidence. The target's
> name and story will not be included in the final document without
> consent, and all identifying details will be changed on request.
>
> What I'm most interested in is how the cyberstalking or harassment
> made you feel, and what happened when you tried to find support. I'd
> like to hear whether it frightened you or made you anxious; whether it
> affected your sleep, your appetite, or your health in any other way;
> and whether you considered ending your association with the project
> you were involved in, or did end it.
>
> Many thanks,
>
> Sarah
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SlimVirgin
>
> ___
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
___
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l