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 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
> > >
> ------- 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
