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 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 >>>> > > > > >>>> > > > > >>>> > > ------- End of Original Message ------- >>>> > > >>>> > > _______________________________________________ >>>> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list >>>> > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>>> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>>> > > >>>> > >>>> > -- >>>> > >>>> > __________________________ >>>> > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >>>> > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >>>> > i centrum badawczego CROW >>>> > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >>>> > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl >>>> > >>>> > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej >>>> > Akademii Nauk członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW >>>> > >>>> > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii >>>> > "Common Knowledge? An Ethnography of Wikipedia" >>>> > (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego autorstwa >>>> > http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 >>>> > >>>> > Recenzje >>>> > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml >>>> > Pacific Standard: >>>> > http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and- >>>> > culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ Motherboard: >>>> > http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of- >>>> > wikipedia The Wikipedian: >>>> > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz- >>>> > jemielniak-common-knowledge >>>> ------- End of Original Message ------- >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >>> __________________________ >>> prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak >>> kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego >>> i centrum badawczego CROW >>> Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego >>> http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl >>> >>> członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk >>> członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW >>> >>> Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common Knowledge? An >>> Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego >>> autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010 >>> >>> Recenzje >>> Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml >>> Pacific Standard: >>> http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-wikipedia-93777/ >>> Motherboard: >>> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-wikipedia >>> The Wikipedian: >>> http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-knowledge >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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
