does a wiki have single authorship (like the original britannica) or
multiple authorship? does it value anonymity? is gender discrimination
more likely when it is known?
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM, <koltzenb...@w4w.net> wrote:
>> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>
> why not for a wiki like Wikipedia?
>
> and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a ton harder" to deal
> with?
>
> thanks,
> Claudia
>
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Sam Katz <smk...@gmail.com>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> l...@lists.wikimedia.org>
> Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:22 -0600
> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>
>> It seems to me you are extrapolating from
>> insufficient data. identity and presentation are
>> not the same thing, but I guess the question in
>> this context is "what is presentation in an online
>> setting?" "how is gender shown in an online setting?"
>>
>> That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have
>> "in a wiki like wikipedia" and it's a ton harder.
>>
>> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
>>
>> --Sam
>>
>> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM,
>> <koltzenb...@w4w.net> wrote:
>> > yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting
>> >
>> > in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably more
>> > important than how the attacked user might identify (or not)
>> >
>> > and again, this might be one of the reasons why people
>> > identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining surveys
>> > and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they "are" -
>> > just like many others who do not identify as (e.g.,
>> > heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less safe if
>> > they say anything about their gender/s or sexual
>> > identity/identities... how come?
>> >
>> > sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in hegemonic
>> > positions would be willing to switch perspectives for a
>> > minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than 20%" -
>> > posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done away with,
>> > I guess
>> >
>> > as for another attempt at switching one's perspective, who
>> > are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or fluid
>> > identities, maybe?
>> >
>> > best, Claudia
>> >
>> > ---------- Original Message -----------
>> > From:Sam Katz <smk...@gmail.com>
>> > To:kerry.raym...@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia content
>> > and communities <wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600
>> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>> > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >
>> >> To those following:
>> >> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The
>> >> question of whether written communication has a
>> >> different way of relating than oral, in the
>> >> context of a wiki, which by definition is
>> >> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous
>> >> editing, is a valid question.
>> >>
>> >> Anonymity and pen names were first used often
>> >> times by women.
>> >>
>> >> I will also note that in terms of interface biases,
>> >> Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons)
>> >> that use photos of their users as adornments, to
>> >> show what users have posted do worse than
>> >> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and
>> >> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users.
>> >>
>> >> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is
>> >> a good first step towards answering it. If I was
>> >> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is
>> >> an important discussion to have.
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond
>> >> <kerry.raym...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman?
>> >> >
>> >> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely in real
>> > life and online.
>> >> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters addressed
>> > to "Dr Sir" etc.
>> >> >
>> >> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real life,
>> > it has got somewhat
>> >> > better over the years. But getting involved in Wikipedia
>> > and its discussions
>> >> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we really
>> > have a gender gap?"
>> >> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?"
>> >> >
>> >> > Kerry
>> >> >
>> >> > -----Original Message-----
>> >> > From: wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org
>> >> > [mailto:wiki-research-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On
>> > Behalf Of Sam Katz
>> >> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM
>> >> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> >> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>> > stats Re: Fwd:
>> >> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >> >
>> >> > hey,
>> >> >
>> >> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that gender
>> > expression
>> >> > online or indeed expression in general is the same as it
>> > is in real
>> >> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are
>> > trying to
>> >> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that
>> > indeed it may not
>> >> > have a gender bias directly if the structure does not
>> > impose it.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, <koltzenb...@w4w.net>
>> > wrote:
>> >> >> Hi Frances,
>> >> >>
>> >> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language where
>> >> >> personal nouns are gendered will always display the
>> >> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it
>> > from a
>> >> >> new dummy account.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and especially so
>> >> >> because community majority has not seen to changing that
>> >> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my cautious note
>> >> >> on gender stats
>> >> >>
>> >> >> best,
>> >> >> Claudia
>> >> >> ---------- Original Message -----------
>> >> >> From:Frances Hocutt <fhoc...@wikimedia.org>
>> >> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>> >> >> <wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>> >> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800
>> >> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>> >> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson
>> >> >>> <m...@anadrome.org> wrote:
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > Frances Hocutt <fhoc...@wikimedia.org> writes:
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > > One change that could address the latter incentive is
>> >> >> to change the
>> >> >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine grammatical
>> >> >> gender is not the
>> >> >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly assigned,
>> >> >> and then some men
>> >> >>> > as
>> >> >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive to set
>> >> >> their gender
>> >> >>> > preferences.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > That's how it currently works, according to the manual,
>> >> >> with the default
>> >> >>> > gender set to 'unknown':
>> >> >>> >
>> > http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or what's in
>> >> >> effect on
>> >> >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though.
>> >> >>> >
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My
>> >> >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong--
>> >> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where
>> >> >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display
>> >> >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of
>> >> >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't
>> >> >>> need to change his gender in preferences in order
>> >> >>> to be described accurately where a female user
>> >> >>> would need to set her gender in order to be
>> >> >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different
>> >> >>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with
>> >> >>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> -Frances
>> >> >> ------- 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
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > _______________________________________________
>> >> > 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
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
