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
