Hi Jonathan Cardy, hi all, I just found something that could enhance our exchange by naming a few more factors than usually discussed on this list:
"In practice, the opportunities for realizing novel, unusual, or less fashionable technological functions are often constrained by a variety of factors: rigid habits, lack of imagination, technical obstacles, vested interests, economic power relationships, social impediments, moral constraints, and the like." Hans Radder, "Critical Philosophy of Technology: The Basic Issues", in: Social Epistemology, Vol. 22, No. 1, January-March 2008, pp. 51-70, p. 59 * rigid habits * lack of imagination * technical obstacles * vested interests * economic power relationships * social impediments * moral constraints * and the like so, in line with the hegemonic culture on this list, what novel, unusual, or less fashionable *technological functions* could be used to solve the power issues that seem to keep up the gender gap? best, Claudia koltzenb...@w4w.net Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 - mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard ---------- 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
