Hey, this is the first time I've actually added anything to discussion on this list :)
I agree that trying to address the issue by hiring one or two activists taking on responsiblity for talking about it/acting on it wouldn't address what I consider to be the big problem of "environmental challenges" or systemic bias, as having people focused specifically on the issue can mean that people who don't care or inadvertently contribute to the problem can continue to dismiss it as a niche issue. In my experience I find it more effective to say, for example, that I think open access is really important and I will contribute to open access projects, but if people behave in ways that contribute to systemic bias, I will not contribute further as I prefer to focus my energies elsewhere.
As research about women in engineering shows, benefits-focused recruitment drives won't work if women (or other underrepresented peoples in Wikipedia) get lost along a leaky pipeline, when after acquiring the technical skills to contribute, they come to feel that their contributions aren't valued and they are better off focusing energies elsewhere. I'm working in international development - part of that often involves disaggregating data to see which projects are involving people of diverse genders and ages and ethnicities for example, and which aren't, and refocusing funding to value groups that demonstrate the ability to be inclusive, or that specifically engage people who are often left out in genuine decision-making and empowerment - rather than pushing them to work for little return. Perhaps one strategy is to look at the composition of existing WMF-affiliated user groups, to see what gaps exist in what WMF is endorsing (and giving grants for. I think it would useful to have an activist involved in every single user group, contributing there and raising awareness of issues among other editors, but that's a burden on each of those activists to lead change in those groups. I wouldn't be comfortable joining a group just focused on this issue, for fear of harassment or people being more subtly difficult, knowing I'm focusing energies in this area that they might be opposed to - I'd be more comfortable being part of a project in which women editors contribute to other projects and that WMF works to ensure their contributions are valued and supported, recognizing that systemic bias means value and support is less likely to happen naturally within the system.
Perhaps they're not mutually exclusive though. I'm sharing this hoping it helps to explain why some people, who are activists in this area, aren't necessarily active in the way proposed right now :)
Cheers, Cobi
On Oct 18, 2556 BE, at 6:29 AM, Sydney Poore wrote:
The threshold for being recognized is pretty low., only 3 people, but I would not want to go for affiliation with less than 10 interested people. And I hope we can attract many many more.
I plan to discuss this in Berlin at the Diversity Conference but want to make it clear that the organization is open to every one interested in actively working on the topic. So please spread the word.
I put a sign up space in the thread so we can capture the initial interest that came out of this thread.
One of the key discussion will be the name of the group. So everyone put their thinking caps on so we can make this decision within the next month of so.
Sydney Poore
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap