... so what if IRL many more female* editors start articles on trans*, inter*, non-genderidentified* and male* people than male* editors start articles on female*, trans*, inter* and non-genderidentified* people?
best, Claudia ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Maximilian Klein <isa...@gmail.com> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l...@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:09:38 -0800 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > 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 > > > > ------- End of Original Message ------- _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
