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 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 > > ------- End of Original Message ------- _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
