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, 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
>
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
