Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
when what is known? gender discrimination? -- Original Message --- From:Sam Katz smk...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 smk...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 smk...@gmail.com To:kerry.raym...@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 kerry.raym...@gmail.com 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
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 oke...@wikimedia.org 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 smk...@gmail.com 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: when what is known? gender discrimination? -- Original Message --- From:Sam Katz smk...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 smk...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably more
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 kerry.raym...@gmail.com 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 fhoc...@wikimedia.org To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 m...@anadrome.org wrote: Frances Hocutt fhoc...@wikimedia.org writes: One change that could address the latter incentive is to change the defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical gender is not the default for new users. It could be randomly assigned, and then some men as well as some women would have the incentive to set their gender preferences. That's how it currently works, according to the manual, with the default gender set to 'unknown': http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in effect on Wikimedia's own wikis, though. I'm aware that it defaults to unknown. My understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong-- is that an unknown user in a language where personal nouns are gendered will always display the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't need to change his gender in preferences in order to be described accurately where a female user would need to set her gender in order to be described as Usuaria. Hence, different incentives, and ones that could be addressed with different default behavior for an unknown user. -Frances --- End of Original Message --- ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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 smk...@gmail.com To:kerry.raym...@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 kerry.raym...@gmail.com 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 fhoc...@wikimedia.org To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 m...@anadrome.org wrote: Frances Hocutt fhoc...@wikimedia.org 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Sam, as I don't think I understand what you are asking, perhaps you could ask your question again maybe with an example distinguishing between written/oral/online/wiki. Sent from my iPad On 7 Mar 2015, at 8:57 am, Sam Katz smk...@gmail.com wrote: 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 kerry.raym...@gmail.com 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 fhoc...@wikimedia.org To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 m...@anadrome.org wrote: Frances Hocutt fhoc...@wikimedia.org writes: One change that could address the latter incentive is to change the defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical gender is not the default for new users. It could be randomly assigned, and then some men as well as some women would have the incentive to set their gender preferences. That's how it currently works, according to the manual, with the default gender set to 'unknown': http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in effect on Wikimedia's own wikis, though. I'm aware that it defaults to unknown. My understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong-- is that an unknown user in a language where personal nouns are gendered will always display the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't need to change his gender in preferences in order to be described accurately where a female user would need to set her gender in order to be described as Usuaria. Hence, different incentives, and ones that could be addressed with different default behavior for an unknown user. -Frances --- End of Original Message --- ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https
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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 smk...@gmail.com To:kerry.raym...@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 kerry.raym...@gmail.com 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 fhoc...@wikimedia.org To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 m...@anadrome.org wrote: Frances Hocutt fhoc...@wikimedia.org writes: One change that could address the latter incentive is to change the defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical gender
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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 fhoc...@wikimedia.org To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 m...@anadrome.org wrote: Frances Hocutt fhoc...@wikimedia.org 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
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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 fhoc...@wikimedia.org To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 m...@anadrome.org wrote: Frances Hocutt fhoc...@wikimedia.org writes: One change that could address the latter incentive is to change the defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical gender is not the default for new users. It could be randomly assigned, and then some men as well as some women would have the incentive to set their gender preferences. That's how it currently works, according to the manual, with the default gender set to 'unknown': http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in effect on Wikimedia's own wikis, though. I'm aware that it defaults to unknown. My understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong-- is that an unknown user in a language where personal nouns are gendered will always display the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't need to change his gender in preferences in order to be described accurately where a female user would need to set her gender in order to be described as Usuaria. Hence, different incentives, and ones that could be addressed with different default behavior for an unknown user. -Frances --- End of Original Message --- ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 fhoc...@wikimedia.org To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 m...@anadrome.org wrote: Frances Hocutt fhoc...@wikimedia.org writes: One change that could address the latter incentive is to change the defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical gender is not the default for new users. It could be randomly assigned, and then some men as well as some women would have the incentive to set their gender preferences. That's how it currently works, according to the manual, with the default gender set to 'unknown': http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in effect on Wikimedia's own wikis, though. I'm aware that it defaults to unknown. My understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong-- is that an unknown user in a language where personal nouns are gendered will always display the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't need to change his gender in preferences in order to be described accurately where a female user would need to set her gender in order to be described as Usuaria. Hence, different incentives, and ones that could be addressed with different default behavior for an unknown user. -Frances --- End of Original Message --- ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ 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
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 smk...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 smk...@gmail.com To:kerry.raym...@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org 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 kerry.raym...@gmail.com 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:23 AM, aaron shaw aarons...@northwestern.edu wrote: ... On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 11:38 PM, Federico Leva (Nemo) nemow...@gmail.com wrote: Speaking of which, the WMF doesn't have resources to appropriately process the 2012 survey data, so results aren't available yet. Did you consider offering them to take care of it, at least for the gendergap number? You would then be able to publish an update. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#Looking_for_survey_results As before, my understanding is that the method by which respondents were selected to participate in the survey does not meet standard methods of survey sampling (see this chunk https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#When.2C_and_how_often_will_the_survey_be_conducted.3F of the description of the survey). As a result, I do not trust the results of the 2012 survey to generate precise estimates of the gender gap or other demographic details about participation. To clarify, as this has since led to misunderstandings elsewhere: The 2012 editor survey used the same sampling method with the same limitations as the April 2011 and November/December 2011 editor surveys. (By design, as one of the main objectives was to gain comparable data and identify trends.) And the 2008 UNU-MERIT survey that forms the basis of Aaron's and Mako's paper essentially used the same method too - with the exception of the aspects (1) and (2) Aaron described below, namely that it sampled both readers and editors, and that there happened to be a comparable survey, conducted by Pew around the same time, that could be assumed not to exhibit the same type of participation bias. Thanks to Aaron's and Mako's paper, the limitations of this method and the fact that it likely leads to an underestimation of the female ratio among Wikipedia editors are now better understood. But I'm not aware of research that has used a fundamentally more reliable method to investigate Wikipedia's gender gap; so for now such web-based volunteer surveys continue to inform our awareness of the topic. After Aaron's and Mako's research became available, I read the 2011 paper which their correction method is based on (Valliant and Dever, Estimating propensity adjustments for volunteer web surveys), and Aaron and I have talked several times about the possibility of finding a weaker form of that method that - by extrapolating some of the 2008 information - could be applied to the 2012 survey despite the lack of comparison data (i.e. (1) (2)). But as he said below, we are not aware of a good option for doing that. I have myself been nudging some other people in the Foundation who were preparing or considering more specialized user surveys to look at the option of constructing them in a way that enables the use of Aaron's and Mako's method, but it has to be said that the requirement to include a reader sample (i.e. (1)) can come at a cost, and that the equivalent of that Pew survey ((2)) might not be available in many of the countries that one is interested in. I've spoken to some very receptive folks at the foundation about this and I hope that they/we will be able to improve it in the future. I'm eager to help improve the survey data collection procedures. Unfortunately, I do not have the capacity to analyze the current survey data in greater depth. The thing that allowed Mako and I to do the study that we published in PLOSONE was the fact that (1) the old UNU-Merit WMF survey sought to include readers as well as editors; *and* (2) at the exact same time Pew carried out a survey in which they asked a nearly identical question about readership. We used the overlapping results about WP readership from both surveys to generate a correction for the data about editorship. Without similar data on readership and similar data from a representative sample of some reference population (in the case of the pew survey, US adults), we cannot perform the same correction. As a result, I do not feel comfortable estimating how biased (or unbiased) the 2012 survey results may be. a On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:31 AM, Michael Restivo marest...@gmail.com wrote: Wikipedia Signpost had a discussion of this question, including data on English Wikipedians' gender by edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-02-14/News_and_notes Yes, but as I wrote in that Signpost article, that data relied on the gender editors state in their user preferences and this information is optional and the majority of accounts do not state it. There a good reasons to assume that the differing incentives distort that data even more than the anonymous responses to banner-advertised surveys. For example, the user has to be comfortable with stating their gender in public, and in several languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_languages_with_grammatical_gender female
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:11 PM, Tilman Bayer tba...@wikimedia.org wrote: Yes, but as I wrote in that Signpost article, that data relied on the gender editors state in their user preferences and this information is optional and the majority of accounts do not state it. There a good reasons to assume that the differing incentives distort that data even more than the anonymous responses to banner-advertised surveys. For example, the user has to be comfortable with stating their gender in public, and in several languages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_neutrality_in_languages_with_grammatical_gender female users have to set that user preference if they want the word user next to their nick show up in female instead of male grammatical gender form (e.g. Benutzerin vs. Benutzer in German) - male users do not have that incentive. 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. -Frances ___ 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
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson m...@anadrome.org wrote: Frances Hocutt fhoc...@wikimedia.org 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:$wgDefaultUserOptions I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in effect on Wikimedia's own wikis, though. I'm aware that it defaults to unknown. My understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--is that an unknown user in a language where personal nouns are gendered will always display the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't need to change his gender in preferences in order to be described accurately where a female user would need to set her gender in order to be described as Usuaria. Hence, different incentives, and ones that could be addressed with different default behavior for an unknown user. -Frances ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Frances Hocutt fhoc...@wikimedia.org writes: One change that could address the latter incentive is to change the defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical gender is not the default for new users. It could be randomly assigned, and then some men as well as some women would have the incentive to set their gender preferences. That's how it currently works, according to the manual, with the default gender set to 'unknown': http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in effect on Wikimedia's own wikis, though. -Mark -- Mark J. Nelson http://www.kmjn.org ___ 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
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 kerry.raym...@gmail.com To:'Research into Wikimedia content and communities' wiki-research- l...@lists.wikimedia.org 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 rinse and repeat 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 page What does
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 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 werespielchequ...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- l...@lists.wikimedia.org 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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 werespielchequ...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- l...@lists.wikimedia.org 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
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 rinse and repeat 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 page What does that show us about people? Kerry ___ 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
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 werespielchequ...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- l...@lists.wikimedia.org 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 jane...@gmail.com 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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 kerry.raym...@gmail.com To:'Research into Wikimedia content and communities' wiki-research- l...@lists.wikimedia.org 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/sandboxoldid=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). But maybe we can even do
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/sandboxoldid=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). But maybe we can even do some kind of qualitative assessment of the change. Aaron and others (apologies if I am not giving credit where it is due) have developed a tool to make reasonable machine assessments of article quality. Could we develop some kind of metric of sentiment in user interaction and see if that is changing under A/B testing? It may even be that letting user's see their own sentiment score may cause self-correcting behaviour. Maybe we don't realise we are becoming older and grumpier. Kerry, older and grumpier (some times) ___ 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
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 jane...@gmail.com wrote: Hi Claudial, I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable. Jane WereSpielChequers wrote: the community is more abrasive towards women I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the conclusion was the community can be perceived to be abrasive and this conclusion, in yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should be rephrased as the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women than by men Kerry wrote: But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the progress against that target, one has to question the point of establishing a target. ___Claudia (responding to Kerry): I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of measuring the progress... and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might add, in speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation does not fund any top level research... - or does it? I think here you are forgetting about the holy shit graph which shows a reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of a direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been stated before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage. Oddly, I think it is one of the easiest of all participatory gaps to measure, but we seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that previous editor surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of never actually being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we have not yet been able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing apples to oranges. Aaron wrote: higher quality survey data __Claudia (responding to Aaron): ...how does one recognize low quality..? Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the criticism of the various editor surveys. Is this stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift through reams of emails until we find all the various objections? Objections galore, as I recall. ___Claudia: which related participation gaps do you have in mind here? Off the top of my head, some of these would be 1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as active editors in rural areas or even in whole states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the whole Global South participation problem (the Global South participation problem is even helped along inadvertently by the new read-only Wikipedia-zero effect); 2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that technically don't lend themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to make movies
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
I forgot that this is a text-based listserv. Here are links to the images I referred to. My apologies. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/English_Wikipedians%27_stated_gender_ratio_by_edits%2C_February_2011.png http://i.imgur.com/PXSBFa8.png On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Michael Restivo marest...@gmail.com wrote: Wikipedia Signpost had a discussion of this question, including data on English Wikipedians' gender by edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-02-14/News_and_notes Their graph shows the male:female ratio: [image: A graph of decreasing bars from females occupying 15% initially to less than 5% on a logarithmic scale.] But their plot omits editors who do not disclose their gender. I plotted these data: [image: Inline image 2] Regards, Michael On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Maximilian Klein isa...@gmail.com wrote: Note that looking at article-gender and not editor-gender gives 15.6% female figure [1], which is similar to the ~16% other in the literature. If article-gender is a proxy for editor-gender, that is useful because it is easier to calculate article-gender. [1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03086v1.pdf Make a great day, Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/ On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfa...@gmail.com 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 dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: hi, On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 dar...@alk.edu.pl To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jdfoo...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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
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 aaron.halfa...@gmail.com 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 dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: hi, On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 dar...@alk.edu.pl To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jdfoo...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, What year are we living ? Thanks, GerardM On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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 aarons...@northwestern.edu To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- l...@lists.wikimedia.org 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 dar...@alk.edu.pl 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 ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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 aarons...@northwestern.edu To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- l...@lists.wikimedia.org 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 dar...@alk.edu.pl 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 ___ 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
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 dar...@alk.edu.pl wrote: hi, On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 dar...@alk.edu.pl To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jdfoo...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, What year are we living ? Thanks, GerardM On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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
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 dar...@alk.edu.pl 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jdfoo...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, What year are we living ? Thanks, GerardM On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
hi, On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 dar...@alk.edu.pl To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jdfoo...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, What year are we living ? Thanks, GerardM On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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 aarons...@northwestern.edu To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- l...@lists.wikimedia.org 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 dar...@alk.edu.pl 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] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
aaron shaw, 17/02/2015 05:50: 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. Speaking of which, the WMF doesn't have resources to appropriately process the 2012 survey data, so results aren't available yet. Did you consider offering them to take care of it, at least for the gendergap number? You would then be able to publish an update. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012#Looking_for_survey_results Nemo ___ 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
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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jdfoo...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, What year are we living ? Thanks, GerardM On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jane...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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 jane...@gmail.com 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
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 dar...@alk.edu.pl 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 ___ 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
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 dar...@alk.edu.pl To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jdfoo...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, What year are we living ? Thanks, GerardM On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- l...@lists.wikimedia.org 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: Hi GerardM, why not have a guess ;-) Claudia -- Original Message --- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki- research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: Hi GerardM, why not have a guess ;-) Claudia -- Original Message --- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jane...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki- research- 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 jane...@gmail.com 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 y...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi all, What are some
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Hoi, It is enough when nothing new is added to the discussion. So I am looking for new data that points in a change in diversity ie the ratio between male and female contributors.The number of items in Wikidata about males and females is one indicator that may change over time. It can be seen as an indicator how our projects become more or less woman friendly. NB I published the number of items about men or women quite regularly and THAT makes mentioning it more or less relevant. While I agree that some studies maintain there relevance. They only reflect a point in time. What I care for is to learn how things change. To do that it is relevant to know HOW research came to a result so that the same routines can be run again. Arguably most research even published research is as good as the reputation of the person who published it. I care about numbers and research that is operational; that can be used in a practical way. Consequently the number of human that do not have a gender is relevant over time because it indicates how we are doing with such relevant information. Hotness is fine. When numbers are produced and the numbers indicate a specific point, it makes little difference when the consequences are not accepted. It is often said that the diversity that exists between the Anglophile world and the rest of the world is way too big. Given the number of people involved it seems obvious that we are not gaining any ground towards more balanced information in ALL of our projects. Thanks, GerardM On 15 February 2015 at 12:03, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: 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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- l...@lists.wikimedia.org 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
In 2011 the project was only ten years old, four more years is time for big changes to have occurred. Changes we know something about include the repercussions of the transition from manual vandal fighting to predominately automated vandalism rejection. This may have had more subtle implications than the obvious one of the reduction in raw edit count. In 2011 we had an admin cadre still dominated by admins appointed in the era when good vandal fighter was sufficient qualification to pass RFA. Four years on the admin corps has changed by not changing. Roughly a fifth of our remaining admins have been appointed in the last four years, but through a process with a very different de facto criteria than before, and of course the vast majority of our admins are now four years older than in 2011. If the theory is true that vandal fighting was very attractive to teenage boys, then in 2011 our youngest admins might still not have been legally adult. Nowadays I doubt if we have many admins who are undergraduates. Sometimes the dialogue within the movement can look like a bunch of over confident thirty something's talking at a bunch of grey beards who they think are adolescents and who think they are being hectored by young pups straight out of college. An editor survey would test theories such as the greying of the pedia, and as with any occasion when one has ones first look in the mirror after a long gap, it would tell us much about ourselves. Another reason for doing another editor survey, and indeed a former editor's survey, is that some of us have been trying to fix the Gendergap for years, it would be nice to see if our efforts have had any impact. 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. Regards Jonathan Cardy On 15 Feb 2015, at 08:34, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: Hi GerardM, why not have a guess ;-) Claudia -- Original Message --- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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
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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: Hi GerardM, why not have a guess ;-) Claudia -- Original Message --- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jane...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki- research- 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
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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 jdfoo...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, What year are we living ? Thanks, GerardM On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jane...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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 jane...@gmail.com 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 y...@wikimedia.org wrote: Hi all, What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers? Thanks, Yana
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
No data point is beside the point. It simply awaits more data points to be beside it, so we can plot the trend. 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 note that a new strategic planning exercise is taking place. It would be a good time to encourage the thinking that strategic plans need metrics and a framework in which selected proposals can be tested (e.g. A/B testing) to see their impact on metrics. For example, I've suggested that we should make undo a little bit harder by additionally requiring a selection of which policy justifies it and a prominent warning if the user is a newbie (to try to get some respect paid to WP:NOBITE). This has two purposes, prevents I don't like it undo, provides clearer feedback to the person's whose edit is undone (and to those of us looking on), provides better metrics about the impact of policies and the policing of those policies, etc. Imagine if we were also collecting a few more demographics about users. We'd then know a whole lot more about which categories of contributors were being reverted by which category of contributors under which policies. If we see concerning patterns emerging, then we have the evidence to push for changes in the policy or its policing or . Kerry _ From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Sunday, 15 February 2015 5:05 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: Hi GerardM, why not have a guess ;-) Claudia -- Original Message --- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jane...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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 jane...@gmail.com 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
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, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: Hi GerardM, why not have a guess ;-) Claudia -- Original Message --- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jane...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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 jane...@gmail.com 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 y...@wikimedia.org 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 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
Hoi, What year are we living ? Thanks, GerardM On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jane...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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 jane...@gmail.com 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 y...@wikimedia.org 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 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
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 gerard.meijs...@gmail.com wrote: Hoi, What year are we living ? Thanks, GerardM On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jane...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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 jane...@gmail.com 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 y...@wikimedia.org 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 mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l ___ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Hi GerardM, why not have a guess ;-) Claudia -- Original Message --- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijs...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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, koltzenb...@w4w.net 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 jane...@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research- 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 jane...@gmail.com 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 y...@wikimedia.org 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
