Hi Sam, while my impression has been that the feel in
debates on this list is way from friendly-space inclusive
(and I daresay that, of course, out of ignorance I have been
contributing to the lamented climate myself...),
may I express the wish that you bring more arguments to
strengthen your points within the discourse frame of this
list - I find your pointers very important, not least for
debating how to do better reasearch on the Wikipedia communities
> But I'll refer my case somewhere else... I think for the
trans community this is pretty important, as well as for
people posting from other countries where 'bias' means death.
let me assure you I am well aware of this kind of "gap" in
worldviews and hence discourses,
best,
Claudia
---------- Original Message -----------
From:Sam Katz <smk...@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 22:02:10 -0600
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> It is our job to improve wikipedia.
>
> I hope we do that.
>
> Frames I assume you mean linguistic frames.
>
> I think in order to record or track gender
> pronouns on wikipedia you have to have a
> compelling reason to do it, not a compelling
> reason not to. There is no reason to identify
> users -- we agree on that that's why we allow
> anonymous submissions. I think any personal
> identifier is a really bad idea -- ask the EFF if
> you don't believe me.
>
> I've made my case. It should in theory not be
> pushed aside by some academic ivory tower spiel.
> But I'll refer my case somewhere else... I think
> for the trans community this is pretty important,
> as well as for people posting from other
> countries where 'bias' means death.
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Oliver Keyes
> <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
> >>>> >> > 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 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
> >>>> >> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> >
> >>>> >> > _______________________________________________
> >>>> >> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> >> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> >> >
> >>>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>>> >> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> >>>> >> research-l
> >>>> > ------- End of Original Message -------
> >>>> >
> >>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> >>>> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> >>>> >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> 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
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Oliver Keyes
> > Research Analyst
> > Wikimedia Foundation
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-
> research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
