this is interesting for me, thank you very much, Jonathan Cardy a few thoughts:
> But it > is interesting when personal experience is in > accord with research. for me it usually turns out to be much more challenging when personal experience is NOT in accord with research ;-) > Subject preferences among editors which hypotheses lies behind this assumption of relevance: that boys prefer to write about boys? ;-) and non-boys, too? if yes, where do we get to on such a basis? and is this really the place we want research to be in (that regularly claims to be objective in any way)? > Applications for reference resources hm, quantity and/or topic-wise? > if someone is looking for a > research topic it would be useful to know if the > community's ratio of gay to straight members is > changing over time. ah, in which culture? why only gay to straight if, e.g., bisexuality and intersex* arae likely to be considered even bigger taboos? and anyway, which shades of "gay" and "straight"? generally speaking, I would claim that any identity which can at times remain invisible is probably based on a culture of remaining unidentifiable and 'invisible'. so here we can profitably restart a debate on the question if researchers who have no personal experience in terms of a culture that has for centuries been based on hiding successfully to anyone except the likeminded/bodied should receive any payment for studying a minority culture they do not belong to themselves... coming to I think of it, maybe it wold help us do away with binaries if anyone could look into the culture of expressing -- or not expressing any -- "identity" maybe we should ask queer theory specialists how they would advise Wikimedians to do studies for which any identitarian glasses need to be taken off in the first place, to boot, I really think we should open a discussion on bias in research questions (and then continue with a debate on bias in research design, maybe, or the other way round) btw, I agree with this idea: "The Master's Tools Wil Never Dismantle the Master's House." (Audre Lorde, 1979) so where would anyone go from here for statistical or any for other (non)gender-related research re the portion of the Wikipedia community that is active on enWP? best, Claudia ---------- Original Message ----------- From:WereSpielChequers <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l...@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Thu, 19 Feb 2015 10:16:42 +0000 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > Dear Claudia, > > As I understand it the evidence for the Gendergap > being real includes: > > Usernames chosen by people creating accounts > Survey responses > Gender choices in user preferences > Attendees at events > Subject preferences among editors > In languages where you can't make talk page > comments without disclosing your gender, the > gender people disclose Discussions amongst editors > by email and other online methods Applications for > reference resources. > > Some of these are more independent of each other > than others, the last two are personal experience > rather than anything statistically valid. But it > is interesting when personal experience is in > accord with research. > > The only exceptions that I am aware of are where > we deliberately target women such as through > gender gap events, and I've heard that campus > ambassadors are more gender balanced. > > I don't dispute that there is a gender gap in the > community, that the gender gap is greater amongst > established editors than among newbies. As for > other genders and whether we have put too much > weight on the male/female ratio, it is a big > glaring difference and when the debate about > gender gap started several years ago now other > ratios such as straight v gay didnt seem out of > kilter. Since then there has been at least one > mistake by ARBCOM and I suspect that the community > isn't as Gay tolerant as I thought it was a few > years back, so if someone is looking for a > research topic it would be useful to know if the > community's ratio of gay to straight members is > changing over time. > > Regards > > Jonathan Cardy > > > On 18 Feb 2015, at 11:23, koltzenb...@w4w.net wrote: > > > > Hi Jonathan Cardy and all, (see below for some software issues) > > > > I agree with your argument, WereSpielChequers/ Jonathan Cardy, and I would > > like to hear more details about > >> many pieces of evidence > > since these, I am told, usually form a good basis for hypotheses that might > > be used in qualitative studies. It seems to me that my attempt at starting > > thought experiment I quote a few lines from here > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wiki-research-l/2015- > > February/004188.html > > might have produced similar data; or might be restarted in a different > > setting, maybe > > > > btw, my apologies, and thank you for your clarification. Actually, I did > > not > > intend to quote the statement in any personal attribution kind of way, but for > > a reversal experiment of the wording. > > I was assembling a few bits and pieces from different parts of different > > threads, and this was my way of making sure people would find the context > > again if they chose to; next time, I will try to look for a different > > method of > > presenting material for any language games. > > > > re "the Wikipedia community" I'd say that since it constitutes itself in adhoc > > teams, every user is a member, even if only for one edit or just by adding a fe > > pages to a watchlist after registration -- irrespective of the number of > > accounts the person behind a login name might be using to join the game > > board Wikipedia. From my point of view, there simply is a large variety in > > how people use any of the functions (or a combination of them) that the > > software of the platform offers -- and any and all use cases contribute to what > > makes the Wikipedia community. I do not have any romantic inclinations > > here. If it is an open system it is an open system for all use cases and their > > inventors, be they acting adhoc way or in a kind of more systematic gaming - > > - that one might have to regard as systemic after all. > > > > so if mediawiki enables users to behave like bullies, my question would be: > > does anyone have any insights as to the chances of changing the software to > > make Wikipedia a less welcoming place to users behaving like bullies? > > or would most experts currently say that mediawiki software does not have > > anything to do with it ;-) ? > > > > best, > > Claudia > > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > > From:WereSpielChequers <werespielchequ...@gmail.com> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- > > l...@lists.wikimedia.org> > > Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:52:10 +0000 > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > > > >> My comment "It could even test the theory that the > >> community is more abrasive towards women. We know > >> that we are less successful at recruiting female > >> editors than male ones, I'm not sure if we have > >> tested whether we are more successful at retaining > >> established male editors than female ones, and if > >> so whether we are losing women because they are > >> lured away or driven away." Seems to have been > >> shortened to me saying that "the community is more > >> abrasive towards women". Before people continue > >> using that quotation and attributing it to me, may > >> I point out that I regard it as an interesting > >> theory worth researching, not as a proven > >> statement. I don't doubt that we have a massively > >> male skew in the community, I have seen too many > >> pieces of evidence that all point that way to > >> doubt that. I am also fairly sure that women, and > >> I'd add gays are more likely to be attacked by > >> trolls and others from outside what I regard as > >> the wikipedia community than straight white men > >> like myself. But I don't know if the community is > >> more abrasive to women or in what way it is, and I > >> would be interested to see more research done in > >> that area. > >> > >> Regards > >> > >> Jonathan Cardy > >> > >>> On 17 Feb 2015, at 08:00, Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> Hi Claudial, > >>> I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable. > >>> Jane > >>> > >>> ____WereSpielChequers wrote: > >>> "the community is more abrasive towards women" > >>> > >>> I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the conclusion > > was "the community can be perceived to be abrasive" and this conclusion, in > > yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should be rephrased as > > "the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women than by men" > >>> > >>> ____Kerry wrote: > >>> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in > > this > >>> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring > > the > >>> progress against that target, one has to question the point of > > establishing a > >>> target." > >>> > >>> ___Claudia (responding to Kerry): > >>> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of > >>> measuring the progress... > >>> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might add, > > in > >>> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation > > does > >>> not fund any top level research... - or does it? > >>> > >>> I think here you are forgetting about the "holy shit graph" which shows a > > reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of a > > direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been stated > > before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage. Oddly, I > > think it is one of the easiest of all "participatory gaps" to measure, but we > > seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that previous editor > > surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of never actually > > being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we have not yet been > > able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing apples to oranges. > >>> > >>> ____Aaron wrote: > >>> "higher quality survey data" > >>> __Claudia (responding to Aaron): ...how does one recognize low > > quality..? > >>> Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the criticism of the various editor > > surveys. Is this stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift through > > reams of emails until we find all the various objections? Objections galore, as > > I recall. > >>> > >>> ___Claudia: which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here? > >>> Off the top of my head, some of these would be > >>> > >>> 1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as active editors in rural > > areas or even in whole states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the > > whole "Global South participation problem" (the Global South participation > > problem is even helped along inadvertently by the new read-only "Wikipedia- > > zero" effect); > >>> 2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that technically don't lend > > themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical > > production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to make movies, how to > > choreograph motion) > >>> 3) lack of topical expertise on subjects that legally don't lend themselves > > well to the Wikiverse, such as articles about artworks under copyright that > > cannot be illustrated in an article; > >>> 4) lack of topical editor coverage on subjects previously shut out - there > > is still unwillingness by a whole group to re-enter the Wikiverse after being > > banned (earlier shut-outs such as blocking whole institution-wide ip ranges > > for vandalism or whole areas of expertise such as groups of writers for their > > COI editing, carry with them a history of anti-Wikipedia sentiment that lasts a > > long time in various enclaves) > >>> > >>> ___Claudia: > >>> and, again, in which language version(s)? > >>> That's easy - the languages that we can technically support but don't yet > > have Wikipedias for and the languages for which we don't even have the > > fonts to display them. > >>> > >>> best, > >>> Claudia > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 7:41 AM, <koltzenb...@w4w.net> wrote: > >>>> Hi WereSpielChequers, Kerry, Aaron and all, > >>>> > >>>> ____WereSpielChequers wrote: > >>>> "the community is more abrasive towards women" > >>>> > >>>> this may be stats expert discourse, but let me show you how the > > question > >>>> itself has a gendered slant. > >>>> imagine what would happen - also in your research design - if it read: > > "the > >>>> community is less abrasive towards men" - how does this compare to > > the > >>>> first question re who are "the community"? > >>>> > >>>> and again, re phasing ten years in 2011 and four years on, which > > language > >>>> version(s) are hypotheses based on? > >>>> > >>>> ____Kerry wrote: > >>>> "But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in > > this > >>>> particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring > > the > >>>> progress against that target, one has to question the point of > > establishing a > >>>> target." > >>>> > >>>> I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of > >>>> measuring the progress... > >>>> and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might > > add, in > >>>> speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation > > does > >>>> not fund any top level research... - or does it? > >>>> > >>>> ____Aaron wrote: > >>>> "higher quality survey data" > >>>> well, and how does one recognize low quality and how come it is so > > low? > >>>> and "quality" by whose epistemological aims and standards? > >>>> > >>>> "causes and mechanisms that drive the gender gap (and related > >>>> participation gaps)" > >>>> which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here? > >>>> where would these gaps be situated in terms of areas of participation? > >>>> and, again, in which language version(s)? > >>>> > >>>> best, > >>>> Claudia > >>>> > >>>> ---------- Original Message ----------- > >>>> From:aaron shaw <aarons...@northwestern.edu> > >>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki- research- > >>>> l...@lists.wikimedia.org> > >>>> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 20:50:17 -0800 > >>>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: > >>>> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > >>>> > >>>>> Hi all! > >>>>> > >>>>> Thanks, Jeremy & Dariusz for following up. > >>>>> > >>>>> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 5:58 AM, Dariusz > >>>>> Jemielniak <dar...@alk.edu.pl> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> As far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a > >>>>>> publication coming up? > >>>>> > >>>>> Sadly, no follow ups at the moment. > >>>>> > >>>>> If we want to have a more precise sense of the > >>>>> demographics of participants the biggest need in > >>>>> this space is simply higher quality survey data. > >>>>> My paper with Mako has a lot of detail about why > >>>>> the 2008 editor survey (and all subsequent editor > >>>>> surveys, to my knowledge) has some profound limitations. > >>>>> > >>>>> The identification and estimation of the effects > >>>>> of particular causes and mechanisms that drive the > >>>>> gender gap (and related participation gaps) > >>>>> presents an even tougher challenge for > >>>>> researchers and is an area of active inquiry. > >>>>> > >>>>> all the best, > >>>>> Aaron > >>>> ------- 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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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
