Re: [Wiki-research-l] What percentage of digital assistants cite Wikipedia?

[koltzenburg]

Ward, I think that quite a few editors would like to know,
indeed,

best,
Claudia

-- Original Message ---
From:Ward Cunningham 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities

Cc:ste...@stellaresults.com
Sent:Sun, 13 Aug 2017 10:19:58 -0700
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] What percentage of digital
assistants cite Wikipedia?

> > On Aug 11, 2017, at 4:02 PM, Stella Yu
 wrote:
> > 
> > Which of the digital assistants (Alexa, Siri, Google
Assistant,
> > Cortana) source/cite Wikipedia?
> 
> I would assume that each of these device operators 
> would have detailed analytics regarding the degree 
> that they reuse Wikimedia content. Editors might 
> be inspired to know the extension of reach thus 
> provided. I wonder if the foundation, or some 
> academic institution, might be a suitable 
> intermediary to work with the operators to make 
> this information generally available so as to 
> encourage continued volunteer participation.
___
> 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] citing female academics

[koltzenburg]

good point, Sam, imo actually the best so far :-)

-- Original Message ---
From:Sam Katz 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Sun, 28 Feb 2016 15:41:12 -0600
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] citing female academics

> 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
> >
> >
--- 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] Upcoming research newsletter (September 2015): new papers open for review

[koltzenburg]

thank you for listing my dissertation topic,
> Wikipedia entries on fiction and non-propositional 
> knowledge representation

btw, it can be reviewed in two perspectives:
* innovative topic and/or
* innovative publishing model (pdf combinded with a wikified version that 
has attracted debate on both de.wikiversity.org and de.wikipedia.org)

best,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net

-- Original Message ---
From:
To:research-l post 
Sent:Sat, 26 Sep 2015 11:48:25 +
Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Upcoming research newsletter (September 2015): 
new papers open for review

> Hi everybody,
> 
> We’re preparing for the September 2015 research 
> newsletter and looking for contributors. Please 
> take a look at: 
> https://etherpad.wikimedia.org/p/WRN201509 and add 
> your name next to any paper you are interested in 
> covering. Our target publication date is Wednesday 
> September 30 UTC. As usual, short notes and one-
> paragraph reviews are most welcome.
> 
> Highlights from this month:
> 
> Editorial Bias in Crowd-Sourced Political 
> Information
> 
> Disease identification and concept mapping using 
> Wikipedia
> 
> Recognizing Biographical Sections in Wikipedia
> 
> The Descent of Pluto: Interactive dynamics,
>  specialization and reciprocity of roles in a 
> Wikipedia debate
> 
> How will your workload look like in 6 years? 
> Analyzing Wikimedia's workload
> 
> Gender imbalance and Wikipedia
> 
> “A Spousal Relation Begins with a Deletion of 
> engage and Ends with an Addition of divorce": 
> Learning State Changing Verbs from Wikipedia 
> Revision History
> 
> How much is Wikipedia Lagging Behind News?
> 
> Measuring the Effectiveness of Wikipedia Articles: 
> How Does Open Content Succeed?
> 
> Wikipedia entries on fiction and non-propositional 
> knowledge representation
> 
> Students' use of Wikipedia as an academic resource 
> — Patterns of use and perceptions of usefulness
> 
> If you have any question about the format or 
> process feel free to get in touch off-list.
> 
> Masssly, Tilman Bayer and Dario Taraborelli
> 
> [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Newsletter
--- 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] new PhD thesis incl. list posting quote

[koltzenburg]

hi all, hi Aaron,

"Wikipedia entries on fiction and non-propositional knowledge 
representation" (wikified) = my PhD thesis Sept 2015, for a pdf version see 
http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.04206

abstract in English here: 
https://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Wikipedia_entries_on_fiction_and_non-
propositional_knowledge_representation

for the full text see link to de.wikiversity.org, its talk page is already 
being 
used :-) debate welcome anywhere,

I also quote from postings to this list, of Feb 2015, Aaron Shaw's 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015-
February/004172.html
and mine 
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015-
February/004151.html
that triggered his, 

thanks, Aaron! I reference your paper with Mako in a foonote, hope readers 
will notice it

best,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Community health (retitled thread)

[koltzenburg]

Hi Aaron, which of Juergen's statements do you mean?

my question is: do you have any evidence for the contrary?

best, Claudia

-- Original Message ---
From:Aaron Halfaker 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Thu, 4 Jun 2015 09:55:02 -0500
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] Community health (retitled thread)

> Hi Juergen, That's an interesting hypothesis.  Do 
> you have any evidence to support it?
> 
> On Thu, Jun 4, 2015 at 9:50 AM, Juergen Fenn 
>  wrote:
> 
> >
> > Am 04.06.2015 um 16:33 schrieb Samuel Klein :
> >
> > > Context: reduced traffic on wikimedia-l.
> > > Is this a sign of poor community health?
> >
> > Reduced traffic on Wikimedia-l is mostly due to list moderation. All
> > critical content has been filtered for a while. I became aware of it only
> > recently when I posted a critical remark which was rejected.
> >
> > The Foundation has not only introduced Superprotect and Superban, it 
has
> > also got a firm grip on all communication channels whatsoever. This will
> > intensify as, we have just learned, new staff will be hired for
> > communication. The WMF no longer needs the community, it does all the
> > traffic itself (staff, chapters, etc.).
> >
> > Of course this shift from crowdsourcing to staff has to be paid for, hence
> > the interest in an ever-increasing flow of donations and hence the 
interest
> > in the Alexa ranking of Wikipedia.
> >
> > Best,
> > Jürgen.
> > ___
> > 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] Gender Estimates Feedback

[koltzenburg]

Hi Jane, thanks, I like your argumentation, 
and I do agree with your slant in general, yet

hi all, second thoughts: with so many female user contributing to 'general' 
topics already, why should non-female human beings not be able and willing 
to contribute more good content on, e.g., clothing and cooking? Maybe some 
gender stereotypes need to be done away with here in order to close content 
gaps. Answers sought :)

best,
Claudia

-- Original Message ---
From:Jane Darnell 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Tue, 2 Jun 2015 08:51:57 +0200
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] Gender Estimates Feedback

> Jason, thanks for your work. The problem you are 
> trying to solve, however, is still not well-
> defined. Yes, we lack female editors, and yes, 
> this probably has an adverse effect on our 
> content. Until we understand why the women are not 
> participating, and why when they do, they drop off 
> more rapidly than men, it is fruitless to try to 
> ramp up participation among women. In fact, this 
> could worsen the situation if we manage to gain on 
> board tons of women who leave in frustration after 
> a few weeks or months, never to come back. We 
> would then be damaging our chances to gain editors 
> who could be become highly valued contributors. 
> Other, unrelated research has shown that 
> reversions have a tendency to drive people away 
> very effectively, and new users have become more 
> likely to be reverted since 2006. My suspicion is 
> that women are affected by reversions more than 
> men. If we think of this whole problem area as a 
> multi-step process, then I think we need to set up 
> something like this for every nth new user (male 
> or female, whoever agrees to participate): 1) one-
> on-one interviews at start of sign-up 2) periodic 
> checkup interviews per month 3) exit interviews at 
> end of 3-month non-activity period.
> 
> Once we understand the issues affecting newbies 
> better, we can implement changes (or not) that can 
> improve our lopsided participation profile (not 
> just for gender but for all other participation 
> gaps as well). On the content side, there is 
> nothing preventing us from actively and 
> aggressively starting translation efforts to 
> spread the female biographies we already have 
> across more language versions of Wikipedia. 
> Wikipedia suffers from the gendergap in academic 
> bias and is in fact worse by definition, because 
> Wikipedia follows academia, and does not create 
> original research
> (according to policy). Notability issues (because 
> women didn't make the grade in early dictionaries 
> of biography) become more prominent for women, 
> just as they do for under-privileged non-white-US 
> groups, so the women's biographies that are 
> already out there in some language version are 
> probably notable enough to be translated into any 
> other language version. Having female biographies 
> to read in any Wikipedia category breeds the 
> creation/addition of more biographies by 
> encouraging a "copycat" effect. Similarly, as 
> women tend to be more oriented towards family 
> issues, education, and daily life, we should 
> aggressively ramp up coverage such as round-the-
> world customs regarding graduation ceremonies, 
> weddings, funerals, baby showers, etc. Also, 
> things like clothing items and accessories,
>  fashion trends, and cooking utensils are all notoriously
> under-covered on Wikipedia in all languages, 
> whereas lots of content that is there in some 
> language could just be translated across wikis.
> 
> It is my expectation that Wikidata will make such 
> translation tasks trivial and building interfaces 
> to add content through translations is a type of 
> contribution that can attract casual new users 
> without seeming too threatening (in terms of 
> potentially being reverted).
> 
> Jane
> 
> On Tue, Jun 2, 2015 at 2:09 AM, Jason Radford 
> wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > Since participating in the Inspire campaign, I got interested in the
> > question of exactly how many women would be needed on Wikipedia to 
close
> > the gender gap.  I ran some simulations and came up with some fairly
> > radical numbers.  For example, according to my calculations, there are so
> > few current and new female editors that, even if every current and new
> > active, female editor stayed active for ten years, we wouldn't close the
> > gap.
> >
> > I've posted the results
> > 
> > to my blog. It's password protected so I can share the results and get
> > feedback without making it pubic.  You can access them by using the
> > password "wikipedia". I'm hoping some of you with experience 
researching
> > gender representation on Wikipedia would be able to catch any errors.
> >
> > Thanks!
> > Jason
> > --
> > Jason Radford
> > Doctoral Student, Sociology, University of Chicago
> > Visiti

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Gendergap and checking our progress against external databases

[koltzenburg]

thanks, 

how about artists identifying as neither female nor male? 

cheers,
Claudia
-- Original Message ---
From:Magnus Manske 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities

Sent:Tue, 24 Mar 2015 10:59:18 +
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] Gendergap and checking our
progress against external databases

> http://magnusmanske.de/wordpress/?p=278
> 
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 8:48 AM Jane Darnell 
>  wrote:
> 
> > Hi all,
> > I am compiling some stats regarding the work done on the
Art & Feminism
> > edit-a-thons for my local chapter and while checking the
state of the wikis
> > regarding female artists I noticed that there are huge
local differences
> > per language wiki regarding "who is notable". One of the
things I love
> > about Mix-and-Match is the way you can easily check the
sitelinks per wiki.
> > You can also download the data with autolist to see
which biographies are
> > popular across different languages. I noticed that in
the case of women
> > this seems to be way different than for men. Women
artists are more likely
> > to be notable in one or two languages only, possibly
because they travel
> > less, making their art known more locally than otherwise
- who knows?
> >
> > In any case, here is something to chew on:
> >
> >
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Women_vs_Men_per_external_db_using_Mix-n-Match.jpg
> >
> > I wish we had more databases from more countries that
only contain artists
> > that we could load into Mix-and-Match!
> >
> > Jane
> > ___
> > 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] bring them here Re: a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[koltzenburg]

Hi Sam, while my impression has been that the feel in
debates on this list is way from friendly-space inclusive
(and I daresay that, of course, out of ignorance I have been
contributing to the lamented climate myself...), 

may I express the wish that you bring more arguments to
strengthen your points within the discourse frame of this
list - I find your pointers very important, not least for
debating how to do better reasearch on the Wikipedia communities

> 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. 

let me assure you I am well aware of this kind of "gap" in
worldviews and hence discourses,

best,
Claudia

-- Original Message ---
From:Sam Katz 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities

Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:02:10 -0600
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> 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 kn

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

[koltzenburg]

Hi Sam and all,

> real life experiments

why not describe their rationale, their setting, the
variables, if people knew they were producing data for your
experiment etc.

> does knowing someone's gender increase bias?

I'd say the outcome depends on cultural factors, e.g., bias
is likely to be the higher in people who have the cultural
habit of counting just two genders, for example

hi all, 

Kerry said Wikipedia feels like being back in the 70s, early
70s, I'd say 
my feeling is: gender stats based on two genders only (let
me reiterate this point) is a no go if you want to enable
and encourage change. Gender gap should not be a singular:
there are more than just two genders

let us take a look at the Wikipedia default in
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences 

it knows of options, but these are:

x prefer not to say
x I am female
x I am male

so, here, the default setting is a binary plus
odd-person-out, and that is placed at the top; if you do
nothing, the first box is ticked

luckily, newcomers neither see it at the start nor do they
have to relate to this issue at all. Yet, if you do nothing,
your user account is still being set in relation to a gender
binary systemic bias

one might do some research into this and ask newcomers (by
age group, maybe) what they feel when seeing this. But I
would prefer not to draw any attention to this systemic
default at all

anyway, what does this say about gender awareness among the
users/staff(?) who may not even see this as an incident of
Wikipedia's systemic bias?

and yes, even if this was not your intended meaning of the
question:

>> is gender discrimination more likely when it is known?

I'd say: when gender discrimination is known, it is more
likely that gender discrimination is part of the game...
currently, wiht the Inspire Campaign, gender discrimination
is being -- well -- advertised, in a way: with female users
being singled out as a minority among Wikipedia editors - so
what effect is to be expected in this light, given that an
alleged majority of male* Wikipedians read this banner
several times these days? 

opinions?

so how to encourage change without drawing attention to
"gender gap" in the singular only?

how bring change without feeding into a worldview that is
itself aprt of the problem?

opinions?

cheers,
Claudia
-- Original Message ---
From:Sam Katz 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities

Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 15:05:26 -0600
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> 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>
> >> > 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 onlin

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

[koltzenburg]

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>
> > 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
> >> >> > 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-researc

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

[koltzenburg]

> 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 
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
> >> > 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
>

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

[koltzenburg]

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
> >> 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 r

Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Gendergap] Gender data by project

[koltzenburg]

hi Pine, 

I wonder: have you had any other replies yet that looked
helpful?

Claudia

-- Original Message ---
From:"Kerry Raymond" 
To:"'Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase
theparticipation of women within Wikimedia projects.'"
, "'Wiki Research-l'"
, "'Wikimedia Cascadia
mailing list'" 
Sent:Thu, 19 Feb 2015 08:09:31 +1000
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Gendergap] Gender data by project

> No, I cannot help with the data (although I share 
> your interest in knowing it).
> 
> But, it is probably not too surprising to find 
> higher concentrations of female Wikipedians in 
> education and GLAM as there are usually high 
> levels of female participation in those 
> professions. If the Wikipedia data exists, it 
> would be interesting to compare it with 
> corresponding occupation gender balances. For 
> example, the biological sciences attract a lot of 
> women (far more than the physical sciences), does 
> that reflect in higher levels of female 
> participation in Wikispecies? Of course, it may 
> not be obvious what occupations should be used for 
> comparison? Travel agents for Wikivoyage? 
> Professional photographers for Commons?
> 
> Kerry
> 
>   _
> 
> From: gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:gendergap-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On 
> Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Wednesday, 18 February 2015 
> 6:07 PM To: Wiki Research-l; Addressing gender 
> equity and exploring ways to increase 
> theparticipation of women within Wikimedia 
> projects.; Wikimedia Cascadia mailing list 
> Subject: [Gendergap] Gender data by project
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Does anyone know if data about gender of 
> contributors on projects other than English 
> Wikipedia is available? In addition to other 
> language Wikipedias, it would be interesring if we 
> have data about Commons, Wikisource, Wikivoyage, 
> Wiktionary, Wikispecies, etc.
> 
> Also, anecodotally I obeserve a relatively high 
> percentage of female participation in education 
> and GLAM activities. Do we have data about the 
> gender of participants in education and GLAM,
>  particularly in leadership roles?
> 
> Thanks,
> Pine
--- 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

[koltzenburg]

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] technological functions (Radder) Re: a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[koltzenburg]

Hi Jonathan Cardy, hi all,

I just found something that could enhance our exchange by naming a few 
more factors than usually discussed on this list:

"In practice, the opportunities for realizing novel, unusual, or less 
fashionable 
technological functions are often constrained by a variety of factors: rigid 
habits, lack of imagination, technical obstacles, vested interests, economic 
power relationships, social impediments, moral constraints, and the like."
Hans Radder, "Critical Philosophy of Technology: The Basic Issues", in: Social 
Epistemology, Vol. 22, No. 1, January-March 2008, pp. 51-70, p. 59

* rigid habits
* lack of imagination
* technical obstacles
* vested interests
* economic power relationships
* social impediments
* moral constraints
* and the like

so, in line with the hegemonic culture on this list, what novel, unusual, or 
less 
fashionable *technological functions* could be used to solve the power issues 
that seem to keep up the gender gap?

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

-- Original Message ---
From:WereSpielChequers 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:16:42 +
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: 
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Dear Claudia,
> 
> As I understand it the evidence for the Gendergap 
> being real includes:
> 
> Usernames chosen by people creating accounts
> Survey responses
> Gender choices in user preferences
> Attendees at events
> Subject preferences among editors
> In languages where you can't make talk page 
> comments without disclosing your gender, the 
> gender people disclose Discussions amongst editors 
> by email and other online methods Applications for 
> reference resources.
> 
> Some of these are more independent of each other 
> than others, the last two are personal experience 
> rather than anything statistically valid. But it 
> is interesting when personal experience is in 
> accord with research.
> 
> The only exceptions that I am aware of are where 
> we deliberately target women such as through 
> gender gap events, and I've heard that campus 
> ambassadors are more gender balanced.
> 
> I don't dispute that there is a gender gap in the 
> community, that the gender gap is greater amongst 
> established editors than among newbies. As for 
> other genders and whether we have put too much 
> weight on the male/female ratio, it is a big 
> glaring difference and when the debate about 
> gender gap started several years ago now other 
> ratios such as straight v gay didnt seem out of 
> kilter. Since then there has been at least one 
> mistake by ARBCOM and I suspect that the community 
> isn't as Gay tolerant as I thought it was a few 
> years back, so if someone is looking for a 
> research topic it would be useful to know if the 
> community's ratio of gay to straight members is 
> changing over time.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Jonathan Cardy
> 
> > On 18 Feb 2015, at 11:23, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Jonathan Cardy and all, (see below for some software issues)
> > 
> > I agree with your argument, WereSpielChequers/ Jonathan Cardy, and I 
would 
> > like to hear more details about
> >> many pieces of evidence
> > since these, I am told, usually form a good basis for hypotheses that 
might 
> > be used in qualitative studies. It seems to me that my attempt at 
starting 
> > thought experiment I quote a few lines from here
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015-
> > February/004188.html
> > might have produced similar data; or might be restarted in a different 
> > setting, maybe
> > 
> > btw, my apologies, and thank you for your clarification. Actually, I did 
> > not 
> > intend to quote the statement in any personal attribution kind of way, 
but for 
> > a reversal experiment of the wording. 
> > I was assembling a few bits and pieces from different parts of different 
> > threads, and this was my way of making sure people would find the 
context 
> > again if they chose to; next time, I will try to look for a different 
> > method 
of 
> > presenting material for any language games.
> > 
> > re "the Wikipedia community" I'd say that since it constitutes itself in 
adhoc 
> > teams, every user is a member, even if only for one edit or just by adding 
a fe 
> > pages to a watchlist after registration -- irrespective of the number of 
> > accounts the person behind a login name might be using to join the 
game 
> > board Wikipedia. From my point of view, there simply is a large variety in 
> > how people use any of the functions (or a combination of them) that the 
> > software of the platform offers -- and any and all use cases contribute to 
what 
> > makes the Wikipedia community. I do not have any romantic inclinations 
> > here. If it is an open system it is an open system for all use cases and 
their 
> > inventors, be they acti

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

[koltzenburg]

Hi Kerry, 

I think that such a tool, if ever, should be used only if everyone who agrees 
with implementing it has had their own behaviour analysed publicly... 
btw, 
one reason why the "thank you" function is not used widely on Wikipedia 
might be that their logs are made public, even if for the entries some 
information is scraped. I consider screened does not usually have the effect 
of trust enhancement, so this would be an interesting issue to look into for 
the measures you suggest. 
my position is that with any kind of surveillance, alleged benefits never 
balance the losses, for individual and social freedom, for a culture of mutual 
trust, for sharing freely what would otherwise risk to be self-censored, not 
least for civil society's antimilitarist activism, etc. ...

my cautious note on gender stats (that seem to talk about facts re the enWP 
community) is in part motivated by similar thoughts as yours, Kerry, 
pinpointing behaviour and drawing conclusions;
because:
talking about any numbers in a short line of no more that 10 words will never 
allow for any transparency about the assumptions underlying the measuring 
and counting exercise, but it is precisely these that *create* the data in the 
first place, 
and I guess that the concept-creating exercise that I read in your mail 
therefore would have to be made public, too, in as easy words as you do here, 
and not in any discourse that is inaccessible for too many of those (like 
myself) who would be affected by an implementation

I guess that while goodwill is nice (to read about), research in my 
understanding should start from reflections about one's own perspective and 
not from any claims about "what is out there" -- but rather: "what do I see to 
be the case out there" and also: why do I perceive this to be my perception -- 
yes, it is no less complicated that this, and I am not the first one to argue 
in 
this vein

anyway, here again, Lorde's insight that the master's tools will never 
dismantle the master's house might serve as a cautious note about any claim 
published and quoted in/from mainstream research

best,
Claudia

-- Original Message ---
From:"Kerry Raymond" 
To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" 
Sent:Fri, 20 Feb 2015 11:18:15 +1000
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> I agree if a person enjoys bullying, they are 
> unlikely to self-correct. But an "interaction 
> sentiment tool" makes it easier for the community 
> to spot these people, and look more closely into 
> what they are doing. Then try to get them to 
> change, and  until such time as 
> they ban them.
> 
> My comment about self-correcting behaviour is 
> about people who don't intend to be a bully but 
> behave abrasively without realising it. We have a 
> lot of battle-weary editors out there who have 
> just seen one too many vandalism, one too many 
> blatant self-promotional article, etc and they 
> become inclined to just shoot down "yet another" 
> with increasing reluctance to check out the merits 
> of the specific case, or to be terse and unhelpful 
> in a Talk message etc. We've probably all had 
> those moments of finding some new user's 
> contribution that needs so much work to improve 
> and thought "I'm just too busy, I don't have time 
> to educate yet another one who probably won't 
> stick around anyway, I'll just delete it and move 
> on". I believe that most of our community does not 
> intend to be a "bully" but may not be aware that 
> is how they might seem to others at times. Letting 
> people be aware that their interaction style is 
> exhibiting higher than average "negative 
> sentiment" *is* likely to change the behaviour of 
> that group.
> 
> Obviously if we were to put such a tool out there, 
> I'd suggest adding some general advice about what 
> you might do if your score is "pretty negative",
> e.g.
> 
> * think about the choice of words you use, don't 
> use words like ..., instead use ...
> 
> * are you terse or just point to a policy without 
> being specific about your concerns
> 
> * could you have suggested a solution rather than 
> just pointing out a problem?
> 
> * is it time for a wiki-break to recharge your batteries?
> 
> The sentiment score is likely to be generated from 
> assessment of a number of elements of the observed 
> interactions, so, for an individual looking at 
> their score, it might be possible to make specific 
> suggestions based on specific component scores,
>  e.g. pointing out specific "abrasive" words being 
> used regularly and suggesting alternatives.
> 
> Here's a suggestion for something a lot simpler 
> than the "international sentiment tool". Just 
> produce some word clouds for:
> 
> * a user's edit summaries
> 
> * a user's edits on article Talk pages
> 
> * a user's edits on other people's User 
> Talk pages
> 
> * a user's edits on their own User Talk pag

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

[koltzenburg]

hm, 

a. > the dark side

... might be where most bright light bulbs are producing the nicest shades of 
shadow ;-)

b. > how can we form research projects around this

maybe by looking at how power is being upheld by those in power instead of 
looking at what those should do or have done that have less of it (or seem to 
have); 
only then look at what could be done to create other hegemonies (maybe 
take what Chantal Mouffe is saying re antagonist agonism, in: Agonistics. 
Thinking the World Politically, 2013)

best, 
Claudia

-- Original Message ---
From:WereSpielChequers 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:29:55 +
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on 
genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> 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
--- 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

[koltzenburg]

this is interesting for me, thank you very much, Jonathan Cardy

a few thoughts:

> But it 
> is interesting when personal experience is in 
> accord with research.

for me it usually turns out to be much more challenging when personal 
experience is NOT in accord with research ;-)

> Subject preferences among editors

which hypotheses lies behind this assumption of relevance: 
that boys prefer to write about boys? ;-)
and non-boys, too?

if yes, where do we get to on such a basis?
and is this really the place we want research to be in (that regularly claims 
to 
be objective in any way)?

> Applications for reference resources

hm, quantity and/or topic-wise?

> if someone is looking for a 
> research topic it would be useful to know if the 
> community's ratio of gay to straight members is 
> changing over time.

ah, in which culture?
why only gay to straight if, e.g., bisexuality and intersex* arae likely to be 
considered even bigger taboos?
and anyway, which shades of "gay" and "straight"?

generally speaking, I would claim that any identity which can at times remain 
invisible is probably based on a culture of remaining unidentifiable and 
'invisible'. 
so here we can profitably restart a debate on the question if researchers who 
have no personal experience in terms of a culture that has for centuries been 
based on hiding successfully to anyone except the likeminded/bodied should 
receive any payment for studying a minority culture they do not belong to 
themselves... 

coming to I think of it, maybe it wold help us do away with binaries if anyone 
could look into the culture of expressing -- or not expressing any  -- 
"identity"

maybe we should ask queer theory specialists how they would advise 
Wikimedians  to do studies for which any identitarian glasses need to be 
taken off in the first place,

to boot, I really think we should open a discussion on bias in research 
questions (and then continue with a debate on bias in research design, 
maybe, or the other way round)

btw, I agree with this idea: 

"The Master's Tools Wil Never Dismantle the Master's House." 
(Audre Lorde, 1979)

so where would anyone go from here for statistical or any for other 
(non)gender-related research re the portion of the Wikipedia community that 
is active on enWP?

best,
Claudia

-- Original Message ---
From:WereSpielChequers 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:16:42 +
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: 
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Dear Claudia,
> 
> As I understand it the evidence for the Gendergap 
> being real includes:
> 
> Usernames chosen by people creating accounts
> Survey responses
> Gender choices in user preferences
> Attendees at events
> Subject preferences among editors
> In languages where you can't make talk page 
> comments without disclosing your gender, the 
> gender people disclose Discussions amongst editors 
> by email and other online methods Applications for 
> reference resources.
> 
> Some of these are more independent of each other 
> than others, the last two are personal experience 
> rather than anything statistically valid. But it 
> is interesting when personal experience is in 
> accord with research.
> 
> The only exceptions that I am aware of are where 
> we deliberately target women such as through 
> gender gap events, and I've heard that campus 
> ambassadors are more gender balanced.
> 
> I don't dispute that there is a gender gap in the 
> community, that the gender gap is greater amongst 
> established editors than among newbies. As for 
> other genders and whether we have put too much 
> weight on the male/female ratio, it is a big 
> glaring difference and when the debate about 
> gender gap started several years ago now other 
> ratios such as straight v gay didnt seem out of 
> kilter. Since then there has been at least one 
> mistake by ARBCOM and I suspect that the community 
> isn't as Gay tolerant as I thought it was a few 
> years back, so if someone is looking for a 
> research topic it would be useful to know if the 
> community's ratio of gay to straight members is 
> changing over time.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Jonathan Cardy
> 
> > On 18 Feb 2015, at 11:23, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote:
> > 
> > Hi Jonathan Cardy and all, (see below for some software issues)
> > 
> > I agree with your argument, WereSpielChequers/ Jonathan Cardy, and I 
would 
> > like to hear more details about
> >> many pieces of evidence
> > since these, I am told, usually form a good basis for hypotheses that 
might 
> > be used in qualitative studies. It seems to me that my attempt at 
starting 
> > thought experiment I quote a few lines from here
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015-
> > February/004188.html
> > might have produced similar data; or might be restarted in a different 
> > setting, maybe
> > 
> > btw, my apologies, and thank you for your clarification. Actual

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

[koltzenburg]

thank you, Kerry,
any other opinions on techno-(non)-determinism and on how mediawiki 
software has "an influence on" Wikipedia community climate? 

What if alot of bullying is undertaken by users who prefer to act undercover 
with multiple accounts but a mediawiki registration page encourages you to 
simply create a new account?

anyway, two comments

> Why are thanks so low on Wikipedia compared with Facebook LIKEs?

mainstream research, I guess, would point at gender ratios (counting just 
two genders, however)

yet, thanking someone in a chatty environment may be a different matter to 
thanking someone in a "serious" knowledge-oriented project (whose social 
network aspects are often renounced)

> It may even be that letting user's see their own "sentiment" score may 
cause self-correcting behaviour.

my guess is that self-correcting one's behaviour is precisely not what users 
who tend to bully others come to Wikipedia for ;-)
 
what makes people stay might rather be ample proofs of how much fun it is 
not only for oneself but also for others to bully or "correct" others
it might this proof of how much fun prolonged disputes can be that makes 
people stay who happily keep gaming in this environment... 

so I guess we should look more into how the culture of "correction" (mainly 
directed towards others...) is given too large a playing field among 
community members of the English version of Wikipedia (am I right in 
guessing that the majority of users still has a background in 
protestant/evangelical training and maybe world view?)

also, looking into dispute culture vs. discussion culture -- relative to 
respective cultural habits and perceptions of how these work and if they are 
distinguishable at all --  might yield interesting outcomes, has anyone 
studied this for the community climate on English language Wikipedia?

best,
Claudia

-- Original Message ---
From:"Kerry Raymond" 
To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" 
Sent:Thu, 19 Feb 2015 09:04:02 +1000
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> On the question of whether "mediawiki enables 
> users to behave like bullies" ...
> 
> Like many technologies, we can use them for good 
> or bad. A car can carry a sick person to a 
> hospital in time to save their life. A car can run 
> down and kill a person. Etc. But we do know that 
> we can design cars to make them safer, both for 
> their occupants (roll cages, seat belts, etc) and 
> for other road users (e.g. banning the use of bull 
> bars), but if I really want to kill myself or 
> others, I can still do so with a car, I just have 
> to try a bit harder.
> 
> In the same vein, MediaWiki can be used in 
> different ways. A User Talk page can be used to 
> leave a Barnstar or call the person a "cunt" (to 
> pick a recent topical example). Thanks to the user 
> contribution page, I can easily find and revert 
> every change you make. Now, maybe they were all 
> bad edits
> (e.g. unsourced allegations about a living person) 
> that were justified. Or maybe I am just harassing 
> you or taking retribution for something you did or 
> said to me or about me. What if I could not see 
> your user contribution page? Would that make it 
> harder for me to harass you?
> 
> At the moment, a couple of clicks reverts an edit. 
> What if we substituted a long form, where you had 
> to click a box to select a primary policy under 
> which you were reverting the edit, and then select 
> a drop-down for a specific aspect of that policy,
>  and then fill in a text box with 100 words 
> explaining your concerns? I think it's fair to say 
> that there would be less reverting, but whether 
> that is for better or worse is hard to say until 
> you try it.
> 
> What if we got rid of User Talk pages and only had 
> article Talk pages? Would our interactions change?
> 
> Interestingly, it's as easy to thank someone for 
> an edit as to revert an edit (not using any tools),
>  yet the number of thanks are incredibly low. How 
> low ... take a look at the stats for January:
> 
> https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?
title=User:F%C3%A6/sandbox&oldid=1
> 49050523
> 
> (and woo hoo I made the top-10 on something in 
> Wikipedia!)
> 
> Why are thanks so low on Wikipedia compared with 
> Facebook LIKEs? Why don't we let the Wikipedia 
> readers click on a Thank-you button if they like 
> an article, which delivers some kind of warm fuzzy 
> message to its top contributors or recent 
> contributors or all contributors or adds to their 
> "good karma" score or something? I note that 
> Facebook took away their old "thumbs down" button 
> (was that an example of redesigning an interface 
> to make it harder to be nasty to someone?)
> 
> But it would seem that, with A/B testing, we can 
> measure how changing the interface of MediaWiki 
> changes behaviour quantitatively (it may be harder 
> to assess how it changes it qualitatively).

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

[koltzenburg]

thanks, Kerry,

yet, if Wikipedia community culture in the English language version is 
dominated by a large majority of male users, it seems likely that only this 
user group that could drive any change.

instead of asking: “do women want to be in an abrasive environment?”

we might therefore be better off asking: “do men want to be in an abrasive 
environment?”

or, “do the majority of Wikipedia Community members want to be in an 
abrasive environment?”

or “who among Wikipedia Community members wants to be in an abrasive 
environment to the extent that all is done to keep it up?”

or, maybe: “who wants Wikipedia to be an abrasive environment to the 
extent that to little is done to effectively put an end to the tendency that 
knowledgeable editors and peace-loving collegues are driven away?” 

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

-- Original Message ---
From:"Kerry Raymond" 
To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" 
Sent:Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:17:47 +1000
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> I don't think it's necessarily a question of "is 
> the community more abrasive towards women?". Apart 
> from specific pockets of misogyny that seem to 
> have been the catalyst for some of the recent 
> ArbCom matters, I don't think it's likely to be 
> the case in general. I expect the community is 
> probably equally abrasive to men and women. The 
> better question is "do women want to be in an 
> abrasive environment?". I think the answer to that 
> is "mostly not". Analysis of women's interactions 
> usually shows a strong tendency towards consensus 
> building. This is very different to the Bold-
> Revert-Discuss culture of Wikipedia. Women are 
> much more like to Discuss-Discuss-Discuss.
> 
> Kerry
> 
>   _
> 
> From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
> [mailto:wiki-research-l-
> boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of WereSpielChequers
> Sent: Wednesday, 18 February 2015 6:52 AM
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on 
> gender stats Re: Fwd:[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> 
> 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 
> onl

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

[koltzenburg]

Hi Jonathan Cardy and all, (see below for some software issues)

I agree with your argument, WereSpielChequers/ Jonathan Cardy, and I would 
like to hear more details about
> many pieces of evidence
since these, I am told, usually form a good basis for hypotheses that might 
be used in qualitative studies. It seems to me that my attempt at starting 
thought experiment I quote a few lines from here
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015-
February/004188.html
might have produced similar data; or might be restarted in a different 
setting, maybe

btw, my apologies, and thank you for your clarification. Actually, I did not 
intend to quote the statement in any personal attribution kind of way, but for 
a reversal experiment of the wording. 
I was assembling a few bits and pieces from different parts of different 
threads, and this was my way of making sure people would find the context 
again if they chose to; next time, I will try to look for a different method of 
presenting material for any language games.

re "the Wikipedia community" I'd say that since it constitutes itself in adhoc 
teams, every user is a member, even if only for one edit or just by adding a fe 
pages to a watchlist after registration -- irrespective of the number of 
accounts the person behind a login name might be using to join the game 
board Wikipedia. From my point of view, there simply is a large variety in 
how people use any of the functions (or a combination of them) that the 
software of the platform offers -- and any and all use cases contribute to what 
makes the Wikipedia community. I do not have any romantic inclinations 
here. If it is an open system it is an open system for all use cases and their 
inventors, be they acting adhoc way or in a kind of more systematic gaming -
- that one might have to regard as systemic after all.

so if mediawiki enables users to behave like bullies, my question would be: 
does anyone have any insights as to the chances of changing the software to 
make Wikipedia a less welcoming place to users behaving like bullies? 
or would most experts currently say that mediawiki software does not have 
anything to do with it ;-) ?

best,
Claudia

-- Original Message ---
From:WereSpielChequers 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:52:10 +
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: 
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> 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 
re

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
> >>> > >

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

[koltzenburg]

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 drive the gender gap (and related 
participation gaps)"
which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here? 
where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of participation? 
and, again, in which language version(s)?

best,
Claudia

-- Original Message ---
From:aaron shaw 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:50:17 -0800
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: 
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hi all!
> 
> Thanks, Jeremy & Dariusz for following up.
> 
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Dariusz 
> Jemielniak  wrote:
> 
> > As far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> > publication coming up?
> 
> Sadly, no follow ups at the moment.
> 
> If we want to have a more precise sense of the 
> demographics of participants the biggest need in 
> this space is simply higher quality survey data. 
> My paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why 
> the 2008 editor survey (and all subsequent editor 
> surveys, to my knowledge) has some profound limitations.
> 
> The identification and estimation of the effects 
> of particular causes and mechanisms that drive the 
> gender gap (and related participation gaps)
>  presents an even tougher challenge for 
> researchers and is an area of active inquiry.
> 
> all the best,
> Aaron
--- 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] types of research Re: a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[koltzenburg]

Hi Bryce, interesting thoughts,  

can you quickly explain to me what you mean by "forms of information"?

best,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net
GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523

-- Original Message ---
From:Bryce Peake 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:33:38 -0800
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on gender 
stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hello all,
> 
> I agree with Claudia's point - counting two 
> genders is pretty outdated when you look at all of 
> the literature on gender AND sex as more fluid
> (scientifically speaking) than binaries do 
> justice. This also makes me agree that the "gender 
> gap" is a bad way to continue bashing our heads 
> over this problem. What we want, methinks (please 
> disagree), is an encyclopedia where people from 
> any point on the gender/sex spectrum feel welcome 
> to contribute, and where we have a space welcoming 
> of -- and not hostile towards -- diverse forms of 
> information. That would suggest to me that the 
> ontological/count 'em all there approach to "how 
> many editors of operationalized genders" is not 
> confronting the actual problem (since some people 
> just don't like to edit Wikipedia).
> 
> Just an idea, then, to parallel Claudia's: we 
> probably want a type of experimental design, where 
> we can follow people from all across the 
> gender/sex spectrum as they encounter, engage, and 
> edit Wikipedia. Using those experiences, then, we 
> can start to build *SOCIO*technical 
> responses/mechanisms to mitigate the hostilities 
> people experience based on gendered social 
> dynamics (all without reducing people to poorly 
> operationalized gender/sex binaries).
> 
> That's not to say I don't enjoy massive surveys, 
> just that they seem ill suited for the actual 
> research problem.
> 
> Bryce
> 
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:21 AM, 
>  wrote:
> 
> > Hi Sidney and everyone else,
> >
> > it seems to me that this list might be turned into a research ideas
> > switchboard, here's some of my thoughts
> >
> > my impression is that counting just two genders is outdated, and maybe
> > calling a phenomenon a "gender gap" might therefore no longer be 
suitable,
> > either,
> > anyone have any ideas for a solution here?
> >
> > we might be looking into the dynamics of power games from a slightly
> > different angle,
> > maybe someone could do some in-depth interviews with Wikimedians
> > officially identifying as male who are willing to reflect on wm-related
> > situations where they would possibly have felt better off as non-males
> >
> > actually, this idea just emerged from the back of my head, where I found 
a
> > previous thought experiment (from a Miscellany_for_deletion discussion 
on
> > enWP) still lingering a bit, which started in this way:
> >
> > * meta: in-principle debates usually show how rules are made to work 
(and
> > kept up) that have been defined by a majority of people. Now let's do a
> > small
> > thought experiment: Imagine that the [...] page is a lovely place to
> > contribute
> > to. Then imagine that any other page you in principle wish to contribute
> > to is
> > actually a place you do not wish to be on because the climate among 
users
> > is
> > unbearable to you. Next step: Please phrase the implicit rules that keep 
me
> > off that page and make them explicit here. Let's see what everyone 
might
> > come up with. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
> >
> > :WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK comes to mind. [...] 17:39, 2 February 2015
> > (UTC)
> >
> > ::Well then, given the thought experiment setting, why does just this 
one
> > come to your mind, [...]? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2015
> > (UTC)
> >
> > :::The section please introduce yourself is a forum for discussion not
> > related
> > to building an encylopedia. It's social in nature with some ambiguous
> > goals. I
> > think frankly it is an attempt to set up her own quasi GGTF since her
> > compatriots were banned. [...] 16:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
> >
> > Thanks, and as for compatriots, next step in the thought experiment,
> > [...],
> > is precisely to now address that other, disagreeable, space and "phrase 
the
> > implicit rules that keep me off that page", any ideas as to how
> > compatriotism
> > might express itself over there? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 08:40, 5 February
> > 2015 (UTC)
> >
> > ---
> >
> > any thoughts are welcome
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia
> > koltzenb...@w4w.net
> > GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> >
> > -- Original Message ---
> > From:Sydney Poore 
> > To:Dariusz Jemielniak , Research into Wikimedia 
content
> > and communities 
> > Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:49:05 -0500
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> > > Hello Dariusz and everyone else,
> > >
> > > I'm interested in sharing ideas about the best way
> > > to discuss the gender gap in the wikimed

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

[koltzenburg]

Hi Sidney and everyone else,

it seems to me that this list might be turned into a research ideas 
switchboard, here's some of my thoughts 

my impression is that counting just two genders is outdated, and maybe 
calling a phenomenon a "gender gap" might therefore no longer be suitable, 
either, 
anyone have any ideas for a solution here? 

we might be looking into the dynamics of power games from a slightly 
different angle,
maybe someone could do some in-depth interviews with Wikimedians 
officially identifying as male who are willing to reflect on wm-related 
situations where they would possibly have felt better off as non-males

actually, this idea just emerged from the back of my head, where I found a 
previous thought experiment (from a Miscellany_for_deletion discussion on 
enWP) still lingering a bit, which started in this way:

* meta: in-principle debates usually show how rules are made to work (and 
kept up) that have been defined by a majority of people. Now let's do a small 
thought experiment: Imagine that the [...] page is a lovely place to contribute 
to. Then imagine that any other page you in principle wish to contribute to is 
actually a place you do not wish to be on because the climate among users is 
unbearable to you. Next step: Please phrase the implicit rules that keep me 
off that page and make them explicit here. Let's see what everyone might 
come up with. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

:WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK comes to mind. [...] 17:39, 2 February 2015 
(UTC)

::Well then, given the thought experiment setting, why does just this one 
come to your mind, [...]? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

:::The section please introduce yourself is a forum for discussion not related 
to building an encylopedia. It's social in nature with some ambiguous goals. I 
think frankly it is an attempt to set up her own quasi GGTF since her 
compatriots were banned. [...] 16:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, and as for compatriots, next step in the thought experiment, [...], 
is precisely to now address that other, disagreeable, space and "phrase the 
implicit rules that keep me off that page", any ideas as to how compatriotism 
might express itself over there? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 08:40, 5 February 
2015 (UTC)

---

any thoughts are welcome

best,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net
GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523

-- Original Message ---
From:Sydney Poore 
To:Dariusz Jemielniak , Research into Wikimedia content 
and communities 
Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:49:05 -0500
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: 
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hello Dariusz and everyone else,
> 
> I'm interested in sharing ideas about the best way 
> to discuss the gender gap in the wikimedia movement.
> 
> While more information is always useful and at 
> times necessary in order to measure change 
> properly, if the previous data seems to still 
> match the day to day observations pretty well then 
> discounting the previous data as wrong just 
> because it is outdated doesn't seem sensible.
> 
> Since I've had the opportunity to observe the 
> gender of wikimedia affiliated groups (both 
> official and informal) from around the world, I 
> can say with confidence  that the wikimedia 
> movement is still dominated by males. Both on and 
> off line, except for diversity related events, I'm 
> often the only women participating in discussions 
> and rarely does the ratio exceed 3 in 10.
> 
> To have my observation better documented would be 
> great :-) I hope that more wikimedia organizations 
> document the gender mix of content creators who 
> are affiliated with their organization so that 
> better research can be done.
> 
> I encourage everyone to look at the up coming WMF 
> Inspire Gender Gap grant campaign and see if they 
> can find an opportunity to work on better data 
> collection during this high profile campaign.
> 
> 
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire_Grants_%E2%80%93
_Gender_gap_campaign
> 
> Sydney
> 
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Wikipedian in Residence
> at Cochrane Collaboration
> 
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Dariusz 
> Jemielniak  wrote:
> 
> > 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 

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

[koltzenburg]

hi dariusz,

> the current methods are far from perfect. 

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

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

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 
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,
> > > > What year are we living ?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >  GerardM
> > > >
> > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24,  wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>  my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary 
paradigm),
> > > >> well...
> > > >>
> > > >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> > considerations,
> > > >>
> > > >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
> > ethnography
> > > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> > > >>
> > > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 
percent
> > of
> > > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This
> > figure
> > > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
> > > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 
complete
> > and
> > > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
> > likely to
> > > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations
> > of
> > > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 
2011)
> > may be
> > > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their 
gender in
> > a
> > > >> community perceived as male dominated."
> > > >>
> > > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also 
described
> > > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one 
quoted
> > above)
> > > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist 
any
> > > >> changes;
> > > >>
> > > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived 
as
> > > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
> > 

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

[koltzenburg]

Hi GerardM, 

two questions come to mind re your mail: 

is your reply (esp. in the second part) a statement about something like 
"enoughness"? 

what does any number of a certain kind of articles in any version have to do 
with the issue at hand?

and here's two hypotheses:

1. the relevance of research cannot always be judged by its year of 
publication alone

2. hotness of a topic is most likely nothing much more than a qualifier 
relative to social and financial factors
from which follows that scientific inquiry is no "neutral" business but 
dependent on categories like "effect of gender relations in a given field of 
inquiry including the motivations underlying any decisions on the part of its 
sponsors"

best,
Claudia

-- Original Message ---
From:Gerard Meijssen 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:37:21 +0100
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: 
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hoi,
> Where you say that we need to be careful with such 
> things, the phenomenon has been recognised. It is 
> receiving attention and there have been plenty 
> signals that it has been taken up all over the 
> world. It deserves continued attention but we need 
> to learn about this process. Quoting from research 
> that is old does not serve a purpose.
> 
> Arguably the coverage of the politics of Djibouti 
> is not as good as the politics of Chicago.That is 
> easy to recognise and it is relatively easy to 
> understand how and if this issue is appreciated as 
> such. One easy way to recognise that it is not 
> really "hot" is that there is no research about 
> it. Thanks,  GerardM
> 
> PS currently there are at least 388991 articles 
> about women [1]\
> 
> 1
> http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?
q=claim%5B31%3A5%5D%20and%20claim%5B21%3A6581072%5D
> 
> On 15 February 2015 at 09:34,
>   wrote:
> 
> > ah, thanks, GerardM,
> >
> > so -- if I read your reaction correctly -- the underlying hypothesis on
> > which it
> > is based says that much has changed (or may have) since those old 
days?
> > What information do you base this hypothesis on?
> >
> > my main point, anyway, is to cast a doubt as to the methods used in 
such
> > statistical work and interpretation of the outcome, any comments on 
that?
> >
> > see also "Clearly, we need to measure some things, but we also need to 
be
> > highly skeptical of what we choose to measure, how we do so, and what 
we
> > do with the resulting data." Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (17 December 2014),
> > Measure, manage, manipulate,
> > http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/measure-manage-
manipulate.html
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia
> > koltzenb...@w4w.net
> > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > -- Original Message ---
> > From:Gerard Meijssen 
> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities  > l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:05:24 +0100
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk
> > > about diversity, it is because it was recognised
> > > as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in
> > > 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give
> > > us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very
> > > much improved. Consequently it is very much beside
> > > the point. Thanks,   GerardM
> > >
> > > On 15 February 2015 at 07:48,
> > >   wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi GerardM,
> > > >
> > > > why not have a guess ;-)
> > > >
> > > > Claudia
> > > > -- Original Message ---
> > > > From:Gerard Meijssen 
> > > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities  > > > l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100
> > > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: 
Fwd:
> > > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > >
> > > > > Hoi,
> > > > > What year are we living ?
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > >  GerardM
> > > > >
> > > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24,
> > > > >   wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >  my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
> > paradigm),
> > > > > > well...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> > > > considerations,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
> > > > ethnography
> > > > > > of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > > > > > "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
> > percent of
> > > > > > all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] 
This
> > > > figure
> > > > > > may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online 
survey
> > > > > > advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
> > complete
> > > > and
> > > > > > valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
> > likely
> > > >

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

[koltzenburg]

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 
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,
> > What year are we living ?
> > Thanks,
> >  GerardM
> >
> > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24,  wrote:
> >
> >>  my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary paradigm),
> >> well...
> >>
> >> I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful 
considerations,
> >>
> >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An 
ethnography
> >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> >>
> >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 percent 
of
> >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This 
figure
> >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
> >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 complete 
and
> >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more likely to
> >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations of
> >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011) 
may be
> >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender in 
a
> >> community perceived as male dominated."
> >>
> >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also described
> >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one quoted 
above)
> >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist any
> >> changes;
> >>
> >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as
> >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most 
rewarding,
> >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not 
least
> >> quote from them persistently, too...
> >>
> >> any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> >>
> >> best,
> >> Claudia
> >> koltzenb...@w4w.net
> >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> >>
> >> -- Original Message ---
> >> From:Jane Darnell 
> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities  >> l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >>
> >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> >> > that could benefit Yana
> >> > -- Forwarded message --
> >> > From: Jane Darnell 
> >> > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> >> > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >> > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> >> > to increase the participation of women within
> >> > Wikimedia projects." < gender...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> >> >
> >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> >> > (translated to English) are here:
> >>
> >> 
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> >> f
> >> >
> >> > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> >> > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> >> > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> >> >  contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> >> > would not say (page 26)
> >> >
> >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> >> >  wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > Hi

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

[koltzenburg]

ah, thanks, GerardM,

so -- if I read your reaction correctly -- the underlying hypothesis on which 
it 
is based says that much has changed (or may have) since those old days? 
What information do you base this hypothesis on?

my main point, anyway, is to cast a doubt as to the methods used in such 
statistical work and interpretation of the outcome, any comments on that?

see also "Clearly, we need to measure some things, but we also need to be 
highly skeptical of what we choose to measure, how we do so, and what we 
do with the resulting data." Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (17 December 2014), 
Measure, manage, manipulate, 
http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/measure-manage-manipulate.html

best,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net
My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
-- Original Message ---
From:Gerard Meijssen 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:05:24 +0100
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: 
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hoi,
> Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk 
> about diversity, it is because it was recognised 
> as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in 
> 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give 
> us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very 
> much improved. Consequently it is very much beside 
> the point. Thanks,   GerardM
> 
> On 15 February 2015 at 07:48,
>   wrote:
> 
> > Hi GerardM,
> >
> > why not have a guess ;-)
> >
> > Claudia
> > -- Original Message ---
> > From:Gerard Meijssen 
> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities  > l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> > > Hoi,
> > > What year are we living ?
> > > Thanks,
> > >  GerardM
> > >
> > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24,
> > >   wrote:
> > >
> > > >  my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary 
paradigm),
> > > > well...
> > > >
> > > > I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
> > considerations,
> > > >
> > > > author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
> > ethnography
> > > > of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> > > >
> > > > Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > > > "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 
percent of
> > > > all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This
> > figure
> > > > may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
> > > > advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 
complete
> > and
> > > > valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more likely
> > to
> > > > respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations 
of
> > > > gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011)
> > may be
> > > > distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender 
in
> > a
> > > > community perceived as male dominated."
> > > >
> > > > additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also described
> > > > by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one 
quoted
> > above)
> > > > is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist 
any
> > > > changes;
> > > >
> > > > and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as
> > > > "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most
> > rewarding,
> > > > and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not
> > least
> > > > quote from them persistently, too...
> > > >
> > > > any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> > > >
> > > > best,
> > > > Claudia
> > > > koltzenb...@w4w.net
> > > > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > > >
> > > > -- Original Message ---
> > > > From:Jane Darnell 
> > > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities  > > > l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > > > Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > >
> > > > > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > > > > that could benefit Yana
> > > > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > > > From: Jane Darnell 
> > > > > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > > > > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > > > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > > > > to increase the participation of women within
> > > > > Wikimedia projects." < gender...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > > >
> > > > > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > > > > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > > > > (translated to English) are here:
> > > >
> > 
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > > > f
> > > > >
> > > > > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > > > > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > > > > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > > > >  contributors were 88% male, 6% femal

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

[koltzenburg]

Hi GerardM, 

why not have a guess ;-)

Claudia
-- Original Message ---
From:Gerard Meijssen 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: 
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hoi,
> What year are we living ?
> Thanks,
>  GerardM
> 
> On 14 February 2015 at 17:24,
>   wrote:
> 
> >  my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary paradigm),
> > well...
> >
> > I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful considerations,
> >
> > author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An 
ethnography
> > of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
> >
> > Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
> > "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 percent of
> > all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This figure
> > may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey
> > advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 complete 
and
> > valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more likely to
> > respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations of
> > gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011) 
may be
> > distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender in a
> > community perceived as male dominated."
> >
> > additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also described
> > by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one quoted 
above)
> > is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist any
> > changes;
> >
> > and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as
> > "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most 
rewarding,
> > and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not 
least
> > quote from them persistently, too...
> >
> > any rebuttals from stats experts here?
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia
> > koltzenb...@w4w.net
> > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> >
> > -- Original Message ---
> > From:Jane Darnell 
> > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities  > l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
> > Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> > > Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> > > that could benefit Yana
> > > -- Forwarded message --
> > > From: Jane Darnell 
> > > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> > > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> > > to increase the participation of women within
> > > Wikimedia projects." < gender...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > >
> > > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> > > external party to conduct a survey and the results
> > > (translated to English) are here:
> > 
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
> > f
> > >
> > > The study was split into two parts; one on the
> > > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> > > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> > >  contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> > > would not say (page 26)
> > >
> > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
> > >  wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Yana
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Gendergap mailing list
> > > > gender...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
> > please
> > > > visit:
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> > > >
> > --- End of Original Message ---
> >
> > ___
> > 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] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

[koltzenburg]

my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary paradigm), well...

I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful 
considerations,

author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An ethnography
of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15

Dariusz Jemielniak writes:
"According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 percent of all 
Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This figure may not 
be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online survey advertised to 
31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073 complete and valid responses 
[...] it is possible that male editors are more likely to respond than female 
editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations of gender showing only 16 
percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011) may be distorted, since more 
females may choose not to reveal their gender in a community perceived as male 
dominated."

additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also described by 
Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one quoted above) is 
generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist any changes;

and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived as "in power" 
might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most rewarding, and hence might 
tend to publish them as widely as possible and not least quote from them 
persistently, too...

any rebuttals from stats experts here?

best,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net
My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523

-- Original Message ---
From:Jane Darnell 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100
Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Forwarding here in case anyone has information
> that could benefit Yana
> -- Forwarded message --
> From: Jane Darnell 
> Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways
> to increase the participation of women within
> Wikimedia projects." < gender...@lists.wikimedia.org>
>
> In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an
> external party to conduct a survey and the results
> (translated to English) are here:
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
f
>
> The study was split into two parts; one on the
> contributors and one on the "users", aka readers.
> Users were 50/50 male female (page 51),
> contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6%
> would not say (page 26)
>
> On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder
>  wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers?
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Yana
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Gendergap mailing list
> > gender...@lists.wikimedia.org
> > To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing,
please
> > visit:
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
> >
--- 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] results re Wikipedia's entries on fiction?

[koltzenburg]

Do you know of any study that deals with Wikipedia's entries on fiction?

In particular, I am seeking information about what experts consider the prevalent theoretical slant informing entries on fiction. Has anyone come across research on this or other literary topics? 

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





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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] unsurprising Re: Wikidata for Research - a research proposal

[koltzenburg]

the claim made in the summary
	> > > "in any field of research"
	> > > needs to be substantiated by data that
	> > >
	> > > * show the usefulness of the project's expected outcome for research fields
	> > > in which proofs do not predominantly rely on measurement but predominantly
	> > > on solidity of argumentation
	> > > * outline how the bias towards facticity (Mautpreller 2011) in Wikidata
	> > > disadvantages non-propositional kinds of knowledge even though the purported
	> > > claim of Wikipedia is to represent "the sum of all knowledge"
	> > >
	> > > see also the list of project partners,
	> > > e.g., representatives of the fields of Maths as well as of Arts & Humanities
	> > > seem to be missing
	> > >
	> > > best,
	> > > Claudia Koltzenburg
	> > > koltzenb...@w4w.net
	> > > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
	> > >
	> > >
	> > > -- Original Message ---
	> > > From:Daniel Mietchen <daniel.mietc...@googlemail.com>
	> > > To:"wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org"
	> > > <wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
	> > > Sent:Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:55:20 +0100
	> > > Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Wikidata for Research - a research proposal
	> > >
	> > >> Dear all,
	> > >>
	> > >> we are drafting a research proposal on establishing Wikidata as a
	> > >> virtual research environment, as explained in
	> > >>
	> > >> http://blog.wikimedia.de/2014/12/05/wikidata-for-research-a-grant-proposal-that-anyone-can-edit/
	> > >> .
	> > >>
	> > >> The proposal is being drafted via
	> > >> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Wikidata_for_research
	> > >> and would benefit from critical review, so we would appreciate your
	> > >> comments, suggestions and edits.
	> > >>
	> > >> Thanks and cheers,
	> > >>
	> > >> Daniel
	> > >>
	> > >> --
	> > >>
	> > >> http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-daniel/
	> > >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Publications
	> > >> http://okfn.org
	> > >> http://wikimedia.org
	> > >>
	> > >> ___
	> > >> 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
	> --- End of Original Message ---
	>
	> ___
	> 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] unsurprising Re: Wikidata for Research - a research proposal

[koltzenburg]

Hi Daniel and all, 

> but most of the reactions came - unsurprisingly

good point: and why do you find it unsurprising?

> integration of further fields of research

the questions here would be:
* into what kind of framework are you expecting to "integrate" other fields of research?
* what cultures of research will by then be determined as "standard" into which the others would then be *made to* fit?

btw, this might be a testing perspective re sitting uncomfortably:
where do any results by "the measuring sciences" look strange due to the framework in which they are presented?

best,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net
My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523

-- Original Message ---
From:Daniel Mietchen 
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities 
Sent:Fri, 12 Dec 2014 11:05:05 +0100
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikidata for Research - a research proposal

> Hi Claudia,
>
> thanks for your comments. While we aim at making Wikidata useful for
> any field of research, even a successfully completed project is
> unlikely to achieve that in one go, so I've changed that phrase to
> "across fields of research".
>
> We have tried to reach out to different disciplines (e.g.
> https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Daniel_Mietchen&offset=20141209075732&limit=31&target=Daniel+Mietchen
> and
> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Daniel_Mietchen&offset=20141209023643&limit=34&target=Daniel+Mietchen
> as well as via the blog and social media)
> but most of the reactions came - unsurprisingly - from the computer
> science and Semantic Web corners. I think that is OK, since our aim is
> to get the process rolling for a tighter integration of Wikidata with
> research - that's why we also set up the WikiProject and hope that the
> proposal will just be the first of many of its activities. Once the
> first such project has been run (be it ours or a fork thereof or a
> different one), integration of further fields of research should be
> simpler than it is today.
>
> I was reaching out to Europeana, which resulted in the European
> Library signing up to become a partner here, which should help cover
> arts and humanities. I have also reached out to mathematicians but did
> not receive enthusiasm. I specifically asked for databases about
> mathematical concepts or other kind of Wikidata-compatible datasets,
> but did not find any. Pointers most welcome, as are further comments
> and edits.
>
> Thanks and cheers,
>
> Daniel
>
> --
> http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-daniel/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Publications
> http://okfn.org
> http://wikimedia.org
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 9:30 AM,   wrote:
> > Hi Daniel, thank you for your pointer,
> >
> > the claim made in the summary
> > "in any field of research"
> > needs to be substantiated by data that
> >
> > * show the usefulness of the project's expected outcome for research fields
> > in which proofs do not predominantly rely on measurement but predominantly
> > on solidity of argumentation
> > * outline how the bias towards facticity (Mautpreller 2011) in Wikidata
> > disadvantages non-propositional kinds of knowledge even though the purported
> > claim of Wikipedia is to represent "the sum of all knowledge"
> >
> > see also the list of project partners,
> > e.g., representatives of the fields of Maths as well as of Arts & Humanities
> > seem to be missing
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia Koltzenburg
> > koltzenb...@w4w.net
> > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> >
> >
> > -- Original Message ---
> > From:Daniel Mietchen 
> > To:"wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org"
> > 
> > Sent:Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:55:20 +0100
> > Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Wikidata for Research - a research proposal
> >
> >> Dear all,
> >>
> >> we are drafting a research proposal on establishing Wikidata as a
> >> virtual research environment, as explained in
> >>
> >> http://blog.wikimedia.de/2014/12/05/wikidata-for-research-a-grant-proposal-that-anyone-can-edit/
> >> .
> >>
> >> The proposal is being drafted via
> >> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Wikidata_for_research
> >> and would benefit from critical review, so we would appreciate your
> >> comments, suggestions and edits.
> >>
> >> Thanks and cheers,
> >>
> >> Daniel
> >>
> >> --
> >>
> >> http://www.naturkundemus

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikidata for Research - a research proposal

[koltzenburg]

Hi Daniel, thank you for your pointer,

the claim made in the summary
"in any field of research"
needs to be substantiated by data that

* show the usefulness of the project's expected outcome for research fields in which proofs do not predominantly rely on measurement but predominantly on solidity of argumentation
* outline how the bias towards facticity (Mautpreller 2011) in Wikidata disadvantages non-propositional kinds of knowledge even though the purported claim of Wikipedia is to represent "the sum of all knowledge"

see also the list of project partners,
e.g., representatives of the fields of Maths as well as of Arts & Humanities seem to be missing

best,
Claudia Koltzenburg
koltzenb...@w4w.net
My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523

-- Original Message ---
From:Daniel Mietchen 
To:"wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org" 
Sent:Fri, 12 Dec 2014 06:55:20 +0100
Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Wikidata for Research - a research proposal

> Dear all,
>
> we are drafting a research proposal on establishing Wikidata as a
> virtual research environment, as explained in
> http://blog.wikimedia.de/2014/12/05/wikidata-for-research-a-grant-proposal-that-anyone-can-edit/
> .
>
> The proposal is being drafted via
> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Wikidata_for_research
> and would benefit from critical review, so we would appreciate your
> comments, suggestions and edits.
>
> Thanks and cheers,
>
> Daniel
>
> --
> http://www.naturkundemuseum-berlin.de/en/institution/mitarbeiter/mietchen-daniel/
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Mietchen/Publications
> http://okfn.org
> http://wikimedia.org
>
> ___
> 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] visualization tool sought (FLOSS)

[koltzenburg]

hi everybody,

can you recommend any FLOSS tool for visualizing the following 
for a certain sample from namespaces 0 and 1

* language linking revisions for a sample of topically related pages
("how has interwiki linking been revised over time in this and that article in 
this and that version?")

* individual user activity in more than one WP version, in a sample group of 
about 30 languages
("which other version has user x contributed to on this topic?")

* temporal aspects of possible relatedness in revision frequency
("when was revision activity highest in certain language versions of this 
sample?")

thanks & cheers,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net

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

[Wiki-research-l] date formats in various WPs

[koltzenburg]

Hi @all,

do you have any idea how to unify date formats in various WPs via URL? 

my aim is to compare revision date/time from different WP versions 
and it would be great to have the same date format for every version of WP 
that I am looking at. 

Does anyone know a solution for the Wikipedias that do not offer the format I 
consider most useful, namely the format starting with 2013-...? 

I am seeking a solution via URL, i.e. one that can be used (and replicated) by 
any user who has no extra rights or any particular database query expertise for 
the WP universe.

for a previous exchange on this topic see  
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Forum#Date_formats_in_various_
Wikipedias

thanks & cheers,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Global Wikipedia: International and cross-cultural issues in online collaboration

[koltzenburg]

Hello Everton,

thank you for your call for chapter submissions

I have two questions that I guess are of global concern

* author income: how much would authors be paid per contributed page?

* author license choice: what licences could authors choose for their 
contributions without having to argue with the publishers at length? 

thanks & cheers,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net

-- Original Message ---
From:Everton Zanella Alvarenga 
To:Mailing list do Capítulo brasileiro da Wikimedia. , Wikimedia Mailing List , Research into Wikimedia content and communities 

Sent:Sat, 19 Jan 2013 13:41:50 -0200
Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Global Wikipedia: International and cross-cultural 
issues in online collaboration

> (Sorry for the cross-posting, but today is 
> Saturday.)
> 
> *Important dates:*
> 
> Proposals Submission Due: January 31, 2013
> Full Chapters Due: March 15, 2013
> Final Submission Due: July 1, 2013
> 
> *Editors (to whom chapters should be sent and 
> questions addressed):
> 
> Pnina Fichman (fichman at indiana.edu 
> ); Noriko Hara 
> (nhara at indiana.edu  indiana.edu>) Indiana University, Bloomington.
> 
> *Introduction:*
> 
> Wikipedia offers articles in 285 languages and 
> more than 80% of Wikipedia articles are written in 
> languages other than English. In addition, the 
> English Wikipedia itself attracts users from all 
> over the world. This global nature of Wikipedia 
> provides a rich socio-technical environment to 
> examine a wide range of international and cross-cultural
> issues. Despite the global reach of Wikipedia, 
> most of the published works about Wikipedia are 
> based on the English site. More research should 
> pay attention to the global, multilingual nature 
> of Wikipedia to gain a better understanding of 
> online international cooperation, on one hand, and 
> of cross-cultural variations in mass knowledge production
> processes and outcomes, on the other. The purpose 
> of this book is to explore a wide range of 
> international and cross-cultural issues as they 
> are manifested on Wikipedia. We are particularly 
> interested in research that takes a socio-
> technical perspective on the global Wikipedia and 
> integrates social theory to explain online 
> interactions. For example, we invite studies on 
> online global collaboration, coordination, and 
> conflict management in this rich socio-technical 
> environment. We hope that these works will 
> highlight implications for other socio-technical 
> environments or extend the use and development of 
> social theory. This unique publication aims to be 
> a collection of international and cross-cultural 
> research on the Wikipedia.We expect that this 
> edited volume will appeal to academic researchers, 
> graduate, and undergraduate students interested in 
> Wikipedia and, more broadly, in social studies of 
> information and communication technologies, as 
> well as to Wikipedia contributors.
> 
> *Recommended topics*:
> 
> We are seeking chapters that include both 
> empirical and conceptual work and soliciting 
> innovative analysis of international and cross-cultural
> aspects of Wikipedia to be part of this book.
> 
> Appropriate topics for chapters include (but are 
> not limited to) the following list:
> 
> ·Case studies of Wikipedia in one of the 285 
> languages, with special interest in small and 
> medium size Wikipedias; for example, focusing on 
> policies, processes, interactions or information quality
> 
> ·Conflict and collaboration in editing 
> international entries on any particular language 
> of Wikipedia
> 
> ·International and cross-cultural collaboration; 
> for example, international cooperation in fighting 
> vandalism
> 
> ·Intercultural synergy across boundaries on 
> Wikipedia or Wikimedia projects
> 
> ·Cross-cultural studies that compare more than one 
> Wikipedia, for example, focusing on:
> 
> ·Cross-cultural comparisons of content, structures,
>  and contributions
> 
> ·Comparative studies of policies, interactions,
>  and processes
> 
> ·Efforts to understand similarities and 
> differences across Wikipedia in multiple languages 
> in user motivations, establishment and maintenance 
> of local communities and challenges
> 
> ·Comparative analysis of editing policies around 
> the globe
> 
> ·Information quality across two or more Wikipedia languages
> 
> ·Comparison of scope and representation of topics 
> across Wikipedia in several languages
> 
> ·Vandalism and trolling behaviors across national 
> and language boundaries Chapters are expected to 
> have between 4000 and 5000 words (excluding 
> references, figures, and tables). Only original 
> work whose copyright is owned (or cleared) by the 
> chapter authors and not considered for publication 
> elsewhere can be considered for inclusion.
> 
> *Important dates*:
> 
> *January 31, 2013:  submit 2-3 page chapter 
> proposals and authors’ bios
> (200 words) *Feb 

[Wiki-research-l] Research Hub Re: Wiki Research Journal? - Why?

[koltzenburg]

yepp, Joe, agree, 

let's develop both of these answer 2 + 2a ideas further
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Research_Hub

see you@all there

Claudia
 
On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 20:10:55 +, Joe Corneli wrote
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 4:38 PM,   wrote:
> 
> > Answer 2:
> >
> > articles are not "submitted" to the journal's editors but written openly on 
> > the journals' platform (and 
then
> > maybe sent to a review process elsewhere as well as opening up to public 
> > review here)
> 
> My answer would be like your Answer 2 above.
> 
> Let me be clear that what I envision would be more like a "research
> hub" than a journal -- but in the end, it would of course include
> papers that could be cited (and that could be noted down on
> contributors' CVs).  But not all contributions would have to be like
> that.  If we extended the scope quite broadly, it would be "like
> Wikipedia, but without the 'no original research' clause."  We'd
> presumably want some other rule, about "focusing on high quality
> research."
> 
> I might also go further:
> 
> Answer 2a:
> 
> The platform itself could be a target for experiment by contributors.
> So, while we could start with a standard MediaWiki installation and
> standard papers, the journal could also review "papers plus
> experiments".  The experiment could take place with extensions to the
> basic MediaWiki installation, or in some other attached wiki.  (In
> mathematics, there's a journal called "Experimental Mathematics" which
> captures a similar sort of spirit.)
> 
> ___
> 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] Wiki Research Journal? - Why?

[koltzenburg]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:50:52 +, Joe Corneli wrote
[...]
> This point from Claudia is important -- «keep in mind that we are not
> talking about a traditional journal here but about "a new research journal
> about Wikis and about research done by using Wikis"» -- however, I think it
> needs expansion, or we'll just end up with some kind of turn-crank solution.
> 
> To reframe that:
> 
>   What's NOT going to be traditional about this journal?

what's your opinion on this, Joe & everyone?

Answer 1:

it will be non-traditional because it addresses not only wiki *software* but - 
see the second about - 
"a new research journal about Wikis and about research done by using Wikis"

the "research done by using Wikis" is non-traditional because it can be 
research in any field and articles 
would address many different research cultures, not just software-centered 
ones. 

Answer 2:

articles are not "submitted" to the journal's editors but written openly on the 
journals' platform (and then 
maybe sent to a review process elsewhere as well as opening up to public review 
here)

for some background see
a.
Wikis in scholarly publishing. Daniel Mietchen, Gregor Hagedorn, Konrad 
Förstner, M Fabiana Kubke, Claudia 
Koltzenburg, Mark Hahnel, and Lyubomir Penev (2011). 
http://precedings.nature.com/documents/5891/version/1
b.
Collaborative platforms for streamlining workflows in Open Science. 
Konrad U. Förstner, Gregor Hagedorn, Claudia Koltzenburg, M Fabiana Kubke and 
Daniel Mietchen (2011). 
Open Knowledge Conference OKCon2011, Berlin, 30 June /1 July 2011, 
http://sunsite.informatik.rwth-aachen.de/Publications/CEUR-WS/Vol-739/paper_8.pdf

what's evreyone else's answers to Joe's question?





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

[Wiki-research-l] peer review debate moved Re: Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review

[koltzenburg]

thanks, Joe, for opening a new wiki page for 
the peer review model debate

from
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas
to
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Review_model

Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review

[koltzenburg]

hm, sadly enough I must agree that you seem to be raising important real-life 
points, Dariusz. But am I 
getting you correctly that you think that major flaws will only be pointed out 
in a review if the reviewer can 
officially stay anonymous? 

in your experience, Dariusz, does this mean reviewers feel fine in placing tons 
of trust in the editors and 
their helphands who organize the review not to tell authors who was their most 
brilliant reviewer?

anyway, I think we need a reviewing system where fair and open criticism can 
flourish. 

in my view of the matter, there will be no one-size-fits-all because 
self-organized communities do have a 
multicultural tendency to self-organize :-) 

one example system that we night also discuss and try out for the Wiki Research 
Journal is a combination of 
open and closed peer review: 
see ACP who, in a highly specialised community, do 8 weeks of post publication 
public discussion 
http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-
physics.net/review/review_process_and_interactive_public_discussion.html

let me suggest we now go to the wiki page 
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas
and continue our debate on the peer review model in a pro/contra/undecided 
style there

and keep in mind that we are not talking about a traditional journal here but 
about 
"a new research journal about Wikis and about research done by using Wikis"
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wiki_Research_Ideas/Volunteers

see you,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:44:13 +0100, Dariusz Jemielniak wrote
> no. Also, academic world may be quite small in some disciplines. If a
> reviewer knows that s/he may be evaluated by the author some time in the
> future (be it in a journal review, or possibly also in career promotion
> reviews, too) s/he will be definitely motivated not to report any major
> flaws, especially if the reviewed author is a big shot.
> 
> Single blind review is a must. In my view, the advantages of double blind
> review are also important, even if practically the actual anonymity may not
> always be preserved. In double blind review the bottom line is that it
> sometimes may and up as a single blind review, but in many cases it does
> not and then it is more fair.
> 
> best,
> 
> dj
> 
> On Thu, Nov 8, 2012 at 10:08 AM,  wrote:
> 
> > well, any attempts at pressures or bribes could easily be made known,
> > couldn't they?
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:56:35 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote
> > > I don't thnk opening peer reviewing would be a good idea. Reviewer must
> > > keep unknown, or she could suffer preasures (even bribes) from authors.
> > In
> > > my opinion only the editor must communicate with the reviewers
> > >
> > > 2012/11/8 
> > >
> > > > agree,
> > > > ... so it is up to you as a reviewer what you do with your "blindness"
> > :-)
> > > >
> > > > doesn't this point in the direction of - plus - is +  ?
> > > > I mean: why not do open peer reviewing?
> > > >
> > > > Claudia
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:43:39 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote
> > > > > Even more, you can easily identify the authors because usually they
> > > > include
> > > > > references to their previous publications to build the new
> > hypothesis ...
> > > > >
> > > > > 2012/11/8 Adam Jenkins 
> > > > >
> > > > > > Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind,
> > > > > > although the effectiveness of it was always a bit questionable, as
> > in
> > > > many
> > > > > > cases you can, as a reviewer, identify the author from the style
> > and
> > > > > > argument. This tends to get worse in specialised areas, where the
> > pool
> > > > of
> > > > > > researchers is necessarily small.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adam
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7 November 2012 06:16, Kerry Raymond 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>  I cannot speak for other disciplines but double-blind is not
> > standard
> > > > > >> in Computer Science. 
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ** **
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD
> > > > > Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPI&FM).
> > > > > Degree Coordinator for Computer Science.
> > > > > Department of Computer Science.
> > > > > Escuela Superior de Ingenieria.
> > > > > C/ Chile, 1
> > > > > 11002 - Cadiz (Spain)
> > > > > University of Cadiz
> > > > > http://

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review

[koltzenburg]

Manuel asks:
> In fact, what's the gain in knowing who is reviewing a paper?

let us look at this from another angle, maybe: As reviewers in open reviewing 
we get a chance of becoming 
more aware of our own inclinations in the face of public visibility vis-a-vis 
objectivity, well-reflected 
arguments and more transparency in general. 

Q: Why should authors of research have to bow to any authority that is hiding 
its identity and tendencies? 

actually, so far I have heard no convincing arguments why in the age of open 
Wikis any reviewer's identity 
should stay behind closed doors. Maybe you have another argument to convince me?

Claudia

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 10:29:25 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote
> I don't agree. I a hard argument can be considered by some people as a
> preasure, while other could not.
> 
> In fact, what's the gain in knowing who is reviewing a paper?
> 
> 2012/11/8 
> 
> > well, any attempts at pressures or bribes could easily be made known,
> > couldn't they?
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:56:35 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote
> > > I don't thnk opening peer reviewing would be a good idea. Reviewer must
> > > keep unknown, or she could suffer preasures (even bribes) from authors.
> > In
> > > my opinion only the editor must communicate with the reviewers
> > >
> > > 2012/11/8 
> > >
> > > > agree,
> > > > ... so it is up to you as a reviewer what you do with your "blindness"
> > :-)
> > > >
> > > > doesn't this point in the direction of - plus - is +  ?
> > > > I mean: why not do open peer reviewing?
> > > >
> > > > Claudia
> > > >
> > > > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:43:39 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote
> > > > > Even more, you can easily identify the authors because usually they
> > > > include
> > > > > references to their previous publications to build the new
> > hypothesis ...
> > > > >
> > > > > 2012/11/8 Adam Jenkins 
> > > > >
> > > > > > Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind,
> > > > > > although the effectiveness of it was always a bit questionable, as
> > in
> > > > many
> > > > > > cases you can, as a reviewer, identify the author from the style
> > and
> > > > > > argument. This tends to get worse in specialised areas, where the
> > pool
> > > > of
> > > > > > researchers is necessarily small.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Adam
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On 7 November 2012 06:16, Kerry Raymond 
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >>  I cannot speak for other disciplines but double-blind is not
> > standard
> > > > > >> in Computer Science. 
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> ** **
> > > > > >>
> > > > > >> 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-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > --
> > > > > Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD
> > > > > Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPI&FM).
> > > > > Degree Coordinator for Computer Science.
> > > > > Department of Computer Science.
> > > > > Escuela Superior de Ingenieria.
> > > > > C/ Chile, 1
> > > > > 11002 - Cadiz (Spain)
> > > > > University of Cadiz
> > > > > http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo
> > > > > Tlf: (+34) 956 015483
> > > > > Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080
> > > > > Mobile phone from University network: 45483
> > > > > Fax: (+34) 956 015139
> > > > >
> > > > > Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede
> > > > contener
> > > > > información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo
> > > > específico.
> > > > > Si usted no es el destinatario del mismo le pido disculpas, y le
> > pido que
> > > > > elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o
> > distribución
> > > > > de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción
> > basada
> > > > en
> > > > > el mismo.
> > > > > --
> > > > > Legal Notice: This message (including the attached files) contains
> > > > > confidential information, directed to a specific addressee and
> > objective.
> > > > > In case you are not the addressee of the same, I apologize. And I
> > ask you
> > > > > to delete this mail, and not to resend, copy or distribute its
> > content,
> > > > as
> > > > > well as develop or execute any action based on the same.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > thanks & cheers,
> > > > Claudia
> > > > koltzenb...@w4w.net
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > ___
> > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review

[koltzenburg]

well, any attempts at pressures or bribes could easily be made known, couldn't 
they?

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:56:35 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote
> I don't thnk opening peer reviewing would be a good idea. Reviewer must
> keep unknown, or she could suffer preasures (even bribes) from authors. In
> my opinion only the editor must communicate with the reviewers
> 
> 2012/11/8 
> 
> > agree,
> > ... so it is up to you as a reviewer what you do with your "blindness" :-)
> >
> > doesn't this point in the direction of - plus - is +  ?
> > I mean: why not do open peer reviewing?
> >
> > Claudia
> >
> > On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:43:39 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote
> > > Even more, you can easily identify the authors because usually they
> > include
> > > references to their previous publications to build the new hypothesis ...
> > >
> > > 2012/11/8 Adam Jenkins 
> > >
> > > > Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind,
> > > > although the effectiveness of it was always a bit questionable, as in
> > many
> > > > cases you can, as a reviewer, identify the author from the style and
> > > > argument. This tends to get worse in specialised areas, where the pool
> > of
> > > > researchers is necessarily small.
> > > >
> > > > Adam
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 7 November 2012 06:16, Kerry Raymond 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>  I cannot speak for other disciplines but double-blind is not standard
> > > >> in Computer Science. 
> > > >>
> > > >> ** **
> > > >>
> > > >> 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-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD
> > > Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPI&FM).
> > > Degree Coordinator for Computer Science.
> > > Department of Computer Science.
> > > Escuela Superior de Ingenieria.
> > > C/ Chile, 1
> > > 11002 - Cadiz (Spain)
> > > University of Cadiz
> > > http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo
> > > Tlf: (+34) 956 015483
> > > Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080
> > > Mobile phone from University network: 45483
> > > Fax: (+34) 956 015139
> > >
> > > Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede
> > contener
> > > información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo
> > específico.
> > > Si usted no es el destinatario del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que
> > > elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución
> > > de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción basada
> > en
> > > el mismo.
> > > --
> > > Legal Notice: This message (including the attached files) contains
> > > confidential information, directed to a specific addressee and objective.
> > > In case you are not the addressee of the same, I apologize. And I ask you
> > > to delete this mail, and not to resend, copy or distribute its content,
> > as
> > > well as develop or execute any action based on the same.
> >
> >
> > thanks & cheers,
> > Claudia
> > koltzenb...@w4w.net
> >
> >
> > ___
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> 
> -- 
> Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD
> Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPI&FM).
> Degree Coordinator for Computer Science.
> Department of Computer Science.
> Escuela Superior de Ingenieria.
> C/ Chile, 1
> 11002 - Cadiz (Spain)
> University of Cadiz
> http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo
> Tlf: (+34) 956 015483
> Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080
> Mobile phone from University network: 45483
> Fax: (+34) 956 015139
> 
> Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede contener
> información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo específico.
> Si usted no es el destinatario del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que
> elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución
> de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción basada en
> el mismo.
> --
> Legal Notice: This message (including the attached files) contains
> confidential information, directed to a specific addressee and objective.
> In case you are not the addressee of the same, I apologize. And I ask you
> to delete this mail, and not to resend, copy or distribute its content, as
> well as develop or execute any action based on the same.


thanks & cheers,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net


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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal? - Double-blind vs. single-blind review

[koltzenburg]

agree, 
... so it is up to you as a reviewer what you do with your "blindness" :-)

doesn't this point in the direction of - plus - is +  ?
I mean: why not do open peer reviewing?

Claudia 

On Thu, 8 Nov 2012 09:43:39 +0100, Manuel Palomo Duarte wrote
> Even more, you can easily identify the authors because usually they include
> references to their previous publications to build the new hypothesis ...
> 
> 2012/11/8 Adam Jenkins 
> 
> > Most of my reviewing for conference and journals was double blind,
> > although the effectiveness of it was always a bit questionable, as in many
> > cases you can, as a reviewer, identify the author from the style and
> > argument. This tends to get worse in specialised areas, where the pool of
> > researchers is necessarily small.
> >
> > Adam
> >
> >
> > On 7 November 2012 06:16, Kerry Raymond  wrote:
> >
> >>  I cannot speak for other disciplines but double-blind is not standard
> >> in Computer Science. 
> >>
> >> ** **
> >>
> >> 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-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Prof. Manuel Palomo Duarte, PhD
> Software Process Improvement and Formal Methods group (SPI&FM).
> Degree Coordinator for Computer Science.
> Department of Computer Science.
> Escuela Superior de Ingenieria.
> C/ Chile, 1
> 11002 - Cadiz (Spain)
> University of Cadiz
> http://neptuno.uca.es/~mpalomo
> Tlf: (+34) 956 015483
> Mobile phone: (+34) 649 280080
> Mobile phone from University network: 45483
> Fax: (+34) 956 015139
> 
> Aviso legal: Este mensaje (incluyendo los ficheros adjuntos) puede contener
> información confidencial, dirigida a un destinatario y objetivo específico.
> Si usted no es el destinatario del mismo le pido disculpas, y le pido que
> elimine este correo, evitando cualquier divulgación, copia o distribución
> de su contenido, así como desarrollar o ejecutar cualquier acción basada en
> el mismo.
> --
> Legal Notice: This message (including the attached files) contains
> confidential information, directed to a specific addressee and objective.
> In case you are not the addressee of the same, I apologize. And I ask you
> to delete this mail, and not to resend, copy or distribute its content, as
> well as develop or execute any action based on the same.


thanks & cheers,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net


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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wiki Research Journal?

[koltzenburg]

+1 Jodi!

I agree it would be great to experiment on-site as you suggest

Claudia

On Mon, 5 Nov 2012 10:39:34 +, Jodi Schneider wrote
> On Mon, Nov 5, 2012 at 12:57 AM, Ward Cunningham  wrote:
> 
> > I wonder if a better place to innovate might be in the conduct of
> > research, rather than the reporting, review and publication of research?
> >
> 
> +1*
> 
> Regarding the existing conversation, if we want a journal, we need to ask
> what the purpose is.
> 
> I'd highly recommend Jason Priem's notion of the "decoupled journal"
> [1][2]. Jason points out that journals have been used for four main
> purposes, historically:
> 
>1. Registration
>2. Archiving
>3. Dissemination
>4. Certification
> 
> Decoupling these functions is the way forward for scholarly communication.
> And it's already been happening -- with ArXiV, SSRN, Math Overflow, ... and
> new ways of measuring research impact [3]. So which function(s) matter most
> to us?
> 
> We can ask:
> 
> (1) What can wikis do for the registration, archiving, and/or dissemination
> functions, better than existing technologies?
> 
> (2) How can wikis contribute to altmetrics [3] used for certification
> functions?
> 
> (3) How can we as a community surface the most interesting and powerful
> research? What technologies do we need? What social habits do we need?
> 
> (4) And, finally, how can our answers to #3 contribute to the certification
> we value? (Prestige, publications counting for tenure, ...)
> 
> I think rather than trying to create a high profile, high impact
> traditional journal, if we focused on these and similar questions, we would
> both move wiki research forward, and drive scientific communication itself
> forward.
> 
> -Jodi
> 
> * of course, reporting and doing research aren't an either/or -- they're
> closely related and one drives the other
> 
> [1] Jason Priem at Purdue:
> video
> http://youtu.be/OM22JuiWYgE
> slides
> https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=ddfg787c_362f465q2g5
> I've written a short summary here:
> http://jodischneider.com/blog/2012/11/04/altmetrics-can-help-surface-
> quality-content-jason-priem-on-the-decoupled-journal-as-the-achievable-
> future-of-scholarly-communication/
> 
> [2] Also a draft article called "Decoupling the scholarly journal" by Jason
> Priem and Bradley M. Hemminger, under review for the Frontiers in
> Computational Neuroscience special issue "Beyond open access: visions for
> open evaluation of scientific papers by post-publication peer review"
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xDOy9GXXrUFc9TUIR2C470DTau8JEgZ9k-SMNIx5pb8/edit?
hl=en_US&authkey=CMeCqOYD
> 
> [3] http://altmetrics.org


thanks & cheers,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net


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

[Wiki-research-l] awards Re: - solutions re academe & Wiki

[koltzenburg]

Hi Piotr, hi all,

Piotr, I like your idea about instituting awards because awards may help 
younger researchers in particular to 
try something new that their bosses are not likely to have tried out by 
themselves, e.g. contributing 
scientific or otherwise research-related stuff to Wikipedia

in my opinion, any idea that helps academics accept open science more 
wholeheartedly will in the long run 
benefit Wikipedia and the wikification of scientific publishing 

On Wed, 23 May 2012 17:48:27 -0400, Piotr Konieczny wrote
[...]
> If we want to encourage cooperation between academia and Wikipedia, we 
> have to make it worthwhile for academics to contribute to Wikipedia - 
> worthwhile in terms of their careers. One of the ways to do so would be 
> to have professional organizations for our respective professions 
> institute an award for popularization of the respective discipline on 
> Wikipedia.

let me illustrate this by an example: two words in your post ("for our 
respective professions" and "award") 
made me think I might point you to a contest for a scientific award that is 
currently running, until 31 May 
which is hosted by an open access journal in Leukemia research et al. (Cellular 
Therapy and Transplantation, 
http://www.ctt-journal.com)

the contest's first phase was run in a discussion forum on the journal's site 
with a subsequent traditional 
upload of papers to be reviewed by a Jury (whose names were publicized in 
advance), with the best six 
papers to be published in that journal afterwards

phase II of the contest is run in a blog, with the blog comments being 
potentially rewardable (by a prize in 
money, by votes etc.) and each comment getting its own doi 
http://maximowaward.wordpress.com/2012/05/10/blog-comment-contest-10-31-may-12-scientific-
terminology/

the organizers think that such a contest is likely to be the first step for 
researchers in this field to use Web 
2.0 for scientiific purposes and in an open science frame. 

the next step would be to invite potential authors of this journal to 
contribute articles in the format of Topic 
Pages that could easily be "wikified" (thanks to Daniel's initiative, see e.g. 
his recent mail 
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2012-May/002124.html)

Q: does anyone know of similar initiatives in medicine or other fields that 
might help speed up some kind of 
habit change and maybe enhance new practices among researchers that get them 
closer to Wikipedia? or 
maybe of some specific criticism of any award in this regard?

thanks & cheers,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net

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

Re: [Wiki-research-l] how find language switch codings? [[xx:xxxxxxxx...]]

[koltzenburg]

thank you very much, Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי 

for a first answer see here:
http://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diskuse_s_wikipedistou:JAn_Dudík#how_do_a_search_for_a_certain_kind_of_inte
rlanguage_links.3F

thanks
Claudia

On Sat, 5 May 2012 09:55:43 +0300, Amir E. Aharoni wrote
> I'm not sure of what do you mean by "language switch". Do you mean
> "adding, removing or changing a link to a version of the article in
> another language"?
> 
> If that's what you mean, then you should indeed search for
> [[code:title]], and note that the 'code' part is one of the 270 or so
> language codes that we use. Wikis in new languages are opened every
> few weeks, so the list of codes is growing. You can find a full and
> reasonably current list here:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/List_of_Wikipedias
> 
> You should also speak to some of the bot operators, because they
> already have code that does such things. For example, speak to
> http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Volkov
> 
> --
> Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי
> http://aharoni.wordpress.com
> ‪“We're living in pieces,
> I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore‬
> 
> 2012/5/5  :
> > Hi @all,
> >
> > I am looking into cases of language switch and I wish to find edits not 
> > undertaken by bots,
> > - how can I do such a search in Wikipedia? would I do this by a search that 
> > involves a string similar to
> > [[xx:...]]?
> > - where would I find the entry point for such a search?
> >
> > maybe there are some better ideas about how to proceed ;-)
> >
> > thanks & cheers,
> > Claudia
> > koltzenb...@w4w.net
> >
> > ___
> > 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


thanks & cheers,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net


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

[Wiki-research-l] how find language switch codings? [[xx:xxxxxxxx...]]

[koltzenburg]

Hi @all,

I am looking into cases of language switch and I wish to find edits not 
undertaken by bots, 
- how can I do such a search in Wikipedia? would I do this by a search that 
involves a string similar to 
[[xx:...]]?
- where would I find the entry point for such a search?

maybe there are some better ideas about how to proceed ;-)

thanks & cheers,
Claudia
koltzenb...@w4w.net

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