Nope - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28social_sciences%29 .
The collection of contexts someone approaches a situation with.
I totally agree that forcing identification is verboten; this wasn't
an ivory tower schpiel. It was the response of a long-term (10 years)
Wikipedian, who also happens to be a researcher into how our projects
work, to the argument that if people avoid identifying themselves as a
member of a particular demography, everything will just be fine.
On 7 March 2015 at 23:02, Sam Katz <smk...@gmail.com> wrote:
> It is our job to improve wikipedia.
>
> I hope we do that.
>
> Frames I assume you mean linguistic frames.
>
> I think in order to record or track gender pronouns on wikipedia you
> have to have a compelling reason to do it, not a compelling reason not
> to. There is no reason to identify users -- we agree on that that's
> why we allow anonymous submissions. I think any personal identifier is
> a really bad idea -- ask the EFF if you don't believe me.
>
> I've made my case. It should in theory not be pushed aside by some
> academic ivory tower spiel. But I'll refer my case somewhere else... I
> think for the trans community this is pretty important, as well as for
> people posting from other countries where 'bias' means death.
>
> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Oliver Keyes <oke...@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>> Sam,
>>
>> So, gender display online != gender display offline, but knowing
>> gender online == knowing gender offline? That's not how frames work.
>>
>> Does knowing someone's gender increase bias? Probably. Because it's a
>> biased and gendered environment we've found ourselves with. Does not
>> knowing someone's gender remove bias? Not in the slightest - because
>> area effect microaggressions are a thing, and a community built by one
>> demographic has processes and standards optimised /for/ that
>> demographic and /away/ from a lot of others.
>>
>> This idea - that women were the first to adopt pen names and so it's
>> possible to avoid microaggressions and bias if you simply stay
>> anonymous - is discriminatory in and of itself (if we have an
>> environment where women have to hide who they are to contribute, the
>> problem is the environment. Do not put the burden and responsibility
>> of avoiding the discrimination on the people suffering from it).
>> Moreover, people won't actually avoid the gender bias, just the
>> extremes of it, because structures still exert their own bias.
>>
>> And, yes, structures /might/ not impose gender bias. But our
>> structures /do/, implicitly and explicitly, in a million ways. When we
>> have male pronouns as the default, when we have a system that is
>> totally ignorant of the differences in sociological conditioning
>> between different demographics (we have adversarial dispute resolution
>> procedures and a clinical inability to control aggressive users. How
>> do you think that meshes with Western, at least, gender
>> essentialism?), we have a structure imposing gender bias.
>>
>> And that's the structure that we have, and arguing that there might be
>> a universe in which this doesn't happen is not a useful argument to
>> make. It's akin to dealing with an inferno in an apartment building by
>> showing up and pointing out that, /strictly speaking/, buildings don't
>> /have/ to be on fire. It's, you know, true, and that's nice, but it's
>> not particularly applicable when our building quite clearly /is/ on
>> fire.
>>
>> So let's get back to brainstorming on how we improve the data we have
>> in this field, and our understanding of the dynamics and biases and
>> makeup of the community, and away from "there could be a community
>> somewhere where these problems are moot", please.
>>
>> On 7 March 2015 at 16:05, Sam Katz <smk...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> people's gender. does knowing someone's gender increase bias? My guess
>>> based on the real life experiments is yes.
>>>
>>> On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:23 PM, <koltzenb...@w4w.net> wrote:
>>>> when what is known? gender discrimination?
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Original Message -----------
>>>> From:Sam Katz <smk...@gmail.com>
>>>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
>>>> <wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>> Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:28:55 -0600
>>>> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
>>>> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>> ------- 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
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Oliver Keyes
>> Research Analyst
>> Wikimedia Foundation
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
--
Oliver Keyes
Research Analyst
Wikimedia Foundation
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
