Thanks for initiating this thread, Kaldari.

On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 9:30 PM, Ryan Kaldari <> wrote:
Part of scientific investigation is forming a hypothesis, but that's difficult to do when you don't even have anecdotal evidence. There's nothing wrong with beginning an investigation with imperfect data. That's how most investigations begin.

I agree with this. There are two paths we can undertake here:

1. We look at the self-reported gender data and do some simple observations.
   + we will have an updated view of the gender gap problem.
   + we may spread seeds for further internal and/or external research about it.
   - If simple observations are not communicated properly, they will result in misinformation, that can possibly do more harm than good.
   - The results will be very limited given that we know the data is very limited and contains biases.

2. We do extensive gender gap analysis internally.
Proper gender gap analysis, in a way that can result in meaningful interventions (think products and features by us or the community) requires one person from R&D to work on it almost full time for a long period of time (at least six months, more probably a year). In this case, the question becomes: How should we prioritize this question? Just to give you some context: Which of the following areas should this one person from R&D work on?
   * reducing gender gap
   * increasing editor diversity in terms of nationality/language/...
   * increasing the number of active editors independent of gender
   * identifying areas Wikipedia is covered the least and finding editors who can contribute to those areas
   * ...

I'd put this as a new request to Trello card and expand on it (what specific questions you're interested in? What do you think you or others want to do once you have the answer to those questions?). Then the team can prioritize given the other constraints we have.



Analytics mailing list