Re: [Gendergap] Wikimedia Conference (was - Diversity training forfunctionaries)

I’m all for practical but I think awareness probably isn’t as high as you might hope. I think the report produced by Wikimedia Deutschland is a good recent summary of the state of play and could be a basis for a structure for discussion: https://ia902308.us.archive.org/32/items/ChartingDiversity-WorkingTogetherTo wardsDiversityInWikipedia/14-wmf-chartingdiversity.pdf I find when I am talking to people about the subject, the conversation tends to run along these lines. What are the stats? This is answerable globally, but if you are having a chapter conversation, then they will want to know locally and AFAIK we don’t have those stats at a national level. Maybe this is something chapters should be asking for in the next WMF editor survey? Does it matter? Believe me, a lot of people get really stuck at this point and frame it as “well, if women don’t want to edit Wikipedia, does it really matter? It’s their choice, isn’t it?” This is something that really needs to get reframed. Yes, of course, many women don’t Wikipedia because they simply aren’t interested in doing so (ditto many men). But there are barriers to entry and barriers to continued participation by women who are interested in doing so compared to men. Try to reframe it “are women equally able to edit Wikipedia” or “are there barriers to women editing?”. The question “does having fewer women impact the content of Wikipedia?” will come up. Or as a less desirable framing of the question, “does it matter if we have less coverage on Wikipedia about romantic comedy movies?” or “how can women have a different point of view about cricket scores?”. Sometimes it will surface as “since we don’t want POV in an encyclopaedia, why do women’s POVs matter?”. Here I often point out that what we hold up as a “gold standard of encyclopaedia” is a traditional view of book-published encyclopaedias from the last couple of centuries. They were written largely by men, were constrained by physical bulk, and the modern reader clearly likes them less than Wikipedia, so using them as an argument for perpetuating any structural aspect of traditional book encyclopaedias needs to be explored in that context. Also, it is not a women’s “POV” that we should be talking but the absence or briefness of aspects of topics that women seem to find more interesting than men. As a concrete example, I went recently on a Wikipedia photo run with a guy. We went to a popular lookout and picnic area. Beyond the obvious things to photograph (the view), he was interested in photographing the highway below and the large flag pole. I was interested in photographing the statue of the dog (long story about the dog omitted) and the love locks on the fence over the waterfall. The guy questioned why I’d photograph those things as “we wouldn’t be writing about them in the article, would we?”. He felt that neither of these was “encyclopaedic”. The article now has the dog story and the love locks and it was amazingly easy to find the citations in the local newspaper because they were “human interest” stories. I think there’s room in Wikipedia for more than just dry facts and statistics. Again, try to turn the question around into “does Wikipedia contain what women want to read?”. (As an aside, all our policies in Wikipedia are written by editors, curiously we don’t involve readers in our policies but arrogantly assume that we know what they want.) Having convinced people that this is a real issue rather than just an interesting statistic, it is time to turn to the more difficult questions of what we can do about it. But again, make it clear that the problem is not “how do we fix the women so they edit Wikipedia more” but rather “how do we fix Wikipedia so women will edit more”. Generally people approach it with the first mindset and that tends to lead to the outreach and edit training solutions, which don’t seem to work all that well in practice. If you look at it from the perspective of not changing women, but changing Wikipedia, then different and more productive conversations may occur. For example, I suspect the Visual Editor will help reducing the technological barriers to entry by women (and many men too). But we also need to change the Wikipedia culture. These days nobody would say “of course women are welcome to work here, but best they stay out of the lunchroom because the noticeboard is covered in nude centrefolds”. Many workplaces have had to address cultural issues that make women unwelcome. Now nude centrefolds may not be Wikipedia’s major problem (although I have stumbled on some pretty unsavoury photos on Commons at times whose “educational value” seems pretty dubious) but how editors interact is a problem. The whole bold-revert-discuss is NOT the natural way women work. I think many women see reverting as a huge slap in the face and they don’t stay around to discuss. If you watch women in the workplace, they tend to discuss and build consensus before doing things. I think the notion that any editor has the right to be the judge, jury and executioner over another person’s edits is given power to some people who are evidently only too willing to abuse it. Is it only me who finds it disturbing when they see a user contribution list that is just roaming around reverting non-vandalism? We’ve got some real bullies out there and no cultural mechanism to deal with them, as the recent ArbCom decision seems to show. Indeed, in which workplaces is it OK to call women a “cunt”? Hmm. Because we don’t have the solutions to the gender gap in a “ready to roll out” package. I think the thing to do is to get people to talk about what things they see in everyday life or the workplace that are done to promote diversity and ask “what are the equivalent things Wikipedia should be doing?”. For example, in the 1970s, we started to see requirements that committees had at least one women representative on them, and nowdays much greater expectation of female representation. Should we have the same thing in a AfD discussion? It cannot close until we get at least the view of one self-identified female editor. Or if our target is 25%, that 25% of votes should be cast by self-identified female editors. Why don’t we try that?! It worked in the workplace, more women got appointed to committees, more women got recruited by selection committees with female representation, more women got promoted, etc. The other thing that worked in workplaces was the macro-statistics. It was easy to justify any decision not to employ a women in a particular job (the guy had more experience although her qualifications were better, or vice versa as suited the purpose) but when you looked hiring practices across the organisation or across departments, the stats told a different story overall. When every department manager had a requirement to improve their department’s statistics (and their bonus might depend on it), things did change. With all of these things, it might not be the mechanisms themselves that made the difference, but it might be that the mechanisms told people that their organisation was determined to change its gender balance and that it was probably the smart idea to get on board rather than resist. Right now at Wikipedia, we are strongly in the “resist” phase (deny the problem exists, deny the problem is really a problem, deny that anything can be done about the problem because that’s “just how we do things around here”, etc). I note that WMF is starting a new strategic planning process. Maybe it’s something the chapters at the conference might want to discuss in terms of gender gap. The current strategic plan has the 25% target but didn’t appear to have any implementations to try to make it happen. It seems to have been a “let’s all pray it goes to 25%”. So in terms of whether it’s Wikimania or the Chapters conference, I think we need both an off-the-shelf set of “talking points” along the lines above. Common questions, common answers. But also from a train-the-trainer perspective, teaching people about this issue of “framing” and “reframing” because when you lead these kind of discussions, you have to be alert that you don’t allow the framing to slip into: “women have a problem, how do we fix women” and show them how to reframe it into “Wikipedia has a problem, how do we fix Wikipedia” at both the micro and macroscopic levels The need to emphasise that unless something is done differently, the outcome will not magically change. There is no “business as usual” solution here. And you need to teach people that cultures can be changed if the organisation wants it to be so and makes that very clear. And for Wikipedia, some cultural change can be enforced in software. For example, if you undo, if you had a tick a box to say under which policy you were undoing, then suddenly it might be a bit harder to “undo because I don’t like it”. It could also trigger a message to the editor whose edit was being undone with explanation and advice in order move away from the “slap you in the face and don’t bother to talk to you about it” culture. There’s lots of things we could try in the platform to reduce or at least detect aggressive behaviours. But right now, I don’t think we have a groundswell of people saying “yes, we need to change how we operate” and maybe we need these kinds of conversations so people begin to see the need for them. Anyhow, that’s my 10c. Kerry _____ From: gendergap-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: Tuesday, 30 December 2014 4:29 AM To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects Subject: [Gendergap] Wikimedia Conference (was - Diversity training forfunctionaries) Hi Anne, Kerry and Christina - and everyone else, So the Wikimedia Conference programme committee appears keen to do something useful in terms of creating space for gender - gap work. So I wondered if you had any further thoughts about what *might* work at the Wikimedia Conference. As Anne points out it is an audience of people from Wikimedia movement organisations - board members, executive directors (where they exist), and a smaller number of other staff. Compared to other Wikimedia events there is probably a greater language and geographical diversity. There is also a reasonable degree of awareness of the issue - better than one would find if you put english Wikipedia administrators in a room. The main focus for the conference is going to be on helping Wikimedia organisations grow, learn and improve - we are looking to give people practical outcomes, and are avoiding theoretical discussion as far as possible. Thoughts on what we can put in the programme on this issue are very welcome :) (I'll pass everything on to the programme committee, though I suspect I'm not the only member of it subscribed to this list). Thanks and happy new year! Chris On 19 Dec 2014 07:21, "Kerry Raymond" &lt;kerry.raymond(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Can I suggest that the Wikimedia Conference do a train-the-trainer session with a view to the chapters running sessions locally in addition to the Wikimania session. Not many people get to go to Wikimania so the chapters approach would be more scalable. Kerry _____ From: gendergap-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Risker Sent: Friday, 19 December 2014 2:16 AM To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries While it might be suitable as a "pilot" at the Wikimedia Conference (I promise not to harp on the name here), it's a by-invitation conference focused on chapter/affiliate executives, many of whom have very limited on-wiki presence. I'm not persuaded that they're the target audience. In fact, I'd suggest this would probably be best suited to a full-day session targeted at active Wikimedia project administrators and those with higher level permissions (think: oversighters, who frequently deal with requests from women who feel harassed because of gender; checkusers tracking down sockpuppets of harassers, and stewards, who can act in either role on projects that don't have their own CU/OS). There is not much overlap between these active on-wiki leaders and the leaders of chapters/affiliates. Strikes me that this would be more ideal for Wikimania, perhaps as a pre-WM session if that can be arranged. Risker/anne On 18 December 2014 at 11:04, Chris Keating &lt;chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Hi Christina - this sounds very interesting - would you be happy for me to propose it as a possible topic in the Wikimedia Conference, for which I'm on the programme committee? Chris On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Christina Burger &lt;christina.burger(a)wikimedia.de&gt; wrote: Hi everyone, Please allow me to briefly introduce myself before coming to the point: I am Christina Dinar and I work at Wikimedia Deutschland for 1,5 years now. Originally, I was employed to take care of community projects that address newbies and enhance the diversity in Wikipedia as well other Wikimedia projects. I came with the professional background of doing workshops with young adults in political education, doing diversity trainings in order to address some of their existing social and violent behavioral problems with each other. Somehow it never got to that moment that I could actually offer this knowledge and experience to the German Wikipedia Community–my professional focus here shifted and I started to work in other fields. Coming from this background, I could definitely offer a diversity workshop at Wikimania, for functionaries as well as on the level of introduction as a train-the-trainer. We even have developed diversity guidelines (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charting_diversity), that theoretically frame the approach on diversity to the specifics of the Wikimedia world. If I get some positive feedback on offering this workshop at Wikimania–ideally not alone but with another interested person–I am not sure what the best way to proceed is: Wait for the submission process, or get in touch with the organizers to ask for a room and time for this special workshop (as others did in the past)? I had drafted a proposal for our diversity conference back in 2013 that we could use and build upon - (it was very general at that time, today I would address more the specfics of WM-movements..): Diversity? Deal with it! – Diversity as a concept has long development in management and especially in human ressource management in order to practically deal with diversity of people coming and working together from different backrounds and levels of knowledge. This 45-min lasting workshop you will actively engage in situations what actually to do and how possibly to act when divers and different opinions, people and backgrounds and communication cultures come together. Different strategies will be developed within the group participants leaving them with set of tools and strategies how to deal with diversity in real life and the online world. I am very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Warmly, Christina Christina Dinar Team Communitys Volunteer Support Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: +49 <tel:%2B49%2017639238378> 17639238378 http://wikimedia.de Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985. 2014-12-14 23:06 GMT+01:00 Jim Hayes &lt;slowking4(a)gmail.com&gt;om>: yes, training could work at wikimania the education foundation and eval. folks had seminars during hackathon, and a track at London https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme what would a required list of HR, managment seminars look like? On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Chris Keating &lt;chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I've added myself to the list of interested people :) Thinking out loud, would that kind of thing work in person at the Wikimedia Conference and/or Wikimania? On 12 Dec 2014 19:33, "Siko Bouterse" &lt;sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: Along similar lines, this pilot training has been suggested for admins: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Gender-gap_admin_training And The Ada Initiative said they were interested in providing training for such a pilot. WMF grantmakers like myself would be pleased to see something like this develop into a proposal, if folks felt it was worth trying. It might make sense to pilot at the admin level before focusing on functionaries like stewards, because admins have more day-to-day interactions with individual editors (and thus more opportunities to facilitate an on-wiki environment that supports diversity). On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Reguyla &lt;reguyla(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: I think this might be a good idea but it would be pretty hard to implement and I think, unnecessary. Most of the functionaries got to where they are because they have a calm demeanor and generally are fair in how they treat others. Additionally, its not usually the functionaries who are the problem. So without requiring the editors to perform the diversity training, I'm not sure how much it would help. On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Chris Keating &lt;chriskeatingwiki(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Don't know if this has been floated before - apologies if so - but: Part of the problem we have is the sheer depth of ignorance among otherwise well-intentioned community members. This depth of ignorance is naturally shared by the people who play leadership roles in the community. So we end up with stewards, arbitrators and bureaucrats who potentially end up reinforcing the gender gap problem because they just have no clue how the structure they maintain can sometimes be a tool to exclude people. How about offering some form of diversity training to functionaries to help broaden perspectives and raise understanding? Obviously, from the point of view of supporting them to do their difficult and fairly thankless roles better, rather than beating them with diversity sticks. It could happen (indeed, WMF could make it happen with some volunteer input); could it help? Chris _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap -- Siko Bouterse Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. sbouterse(a)wikimedia.org Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. Donate <https://donate.wikimedia.org> or click the "edit" button today, and help us make it a reality! _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap