As mentioned earlier, we have the gender preference data. I asked for
a report, and, well, ask and ye shall receive.
It should be noted that this data could be misleading; it is only
representative of people who have elected to self-identify. However, I
think it may be a useful point for extrapolation.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Wikitech-l] Fwd: Gender preference
Date: Wed, 9 Feb 2011 23:18:44 +0100
From: DaB. <WP(a)daniel.baur4.info>
Reply-To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Wikimedia developers <wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Hello,
Am Mittwoch 09 Februar 2011, 22:38:20 schrieb Brandon Harris:
> Is it possible to get a single aggregate report, just so that we have a
> little data to work with on the gender gap list?
sure. I asked the toolserver-database:
en.wikipedia:
Male: 233312
Femaile: 46973
All user: 13959842
de.wikipedia:
Male: 35726
Female: 4800
All user: 1167708
fr.wikipedia:
Male: 18556
Female: 3054
All user: 998668
commons:
Male: 27980
Female: 5070
All user: 1464442
Say if you need more data.
Sincerly,
DaB.
--
Userpage: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] — PGP: 2B255885
Done! :-)
Including adding the idea of suggesting articles...
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap/outreach_letters
On 2/22/2011 4:46 PM, Sue Gardner wrote:
> Carol, I think this is a great idea :-)
>
> I think we (anyone here) should create a page on meta (linked to from
> here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap) where we put your
> draft text, and point to good basic resources to support people
> getting started in editing. (There are some very good resources here:
> http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf/Wikipedia and elsewhere
> on the outreach wiki.)
>
> That would equip people to use your base text, plus any links that
> seem useful to them, to do outreach to any group they like. I really
> believe that individual outreach: people reaching out to their own
> networks, is a good tactic for us. Because the people who are one
> degree of separation from the people here are by definition good
> candidates to become editors.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
>
>
> --
> Sue Gardner
> Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 415 839 6885 office
> 415 816 9967 cell
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
I found this that I have nearly forgotten Video: http://blip.tv/file/3038704
and the text: http://jilltxt.net/?p=2441
Jill Walker Rettberg on Wikipedia Academy i in Bergen, 15. oktober
2009. Its interesting in this context too.
Nina
nina.wikipedia(a)gmail.com
Perhaps there are already adequate guidelines as well as resources regarding
on line conflict and resolution, but one resource might be the Public
Conversations Project in Cambridge which has all sorts of resources for
better communications - they managed a six month online conversation with
about 25 people with varying views on abortion. I am sure they could help as
could many other such groups.
Frances Kissling, visiting scholar
Center for Bioethics, UPenn
202 368 3954
Hello. I'd like to share with you what is -in my opinion- a serious
problem with one of the most important articles in Wikipedia.
I'm referring to the article about love. I think that keeping neutrallity
in this article is fundamental, since many people from all over the
world reads it, and also copy the contents to their own Wikipedias,
so lack of neutrallity would mean something very dangerous,
in fact something like a tacit dictatorship of thought -or feeling,
in fact- sent to the world. And I mean it.
I opened a discussion in the village pump, maybe you'd want to have a
look and see what I mean.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Love
I think it's not an offtopic since this article has a serious lack of
neutrallity on what global human relationships are.
Best wishes,
Miguel Ángel
I've made preliminary inquires regarding the establishment of a Girl
Scout merit badge or other achievement award in online encyclopedia
improvement. There is precedent for such a program in the 1960's "Wing
Scouts" Girl Scout aviation program:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wing_Scout#Wing_Scouts_in_Northern_California
San Francisco's Girl Scout camp, Camp Ida Smith, is due to be returned
soon from the Department of Public Works after renovation of the Lake
Merced pumping station -- see p. 4, topic 12 of
http://www.girlscoutsnorcal.org/documents/08-07-07-MM-No-Co.pdf --
presenting an opportunity for the re-commissioning ceremony.
It is still not clear to me what is necessary to establish a new
achievement award, but I would ask that list members in the US contact
their local Girl Scouts USA Council in support of the proposal:
http://www.girlscouts.org/councilfinder/
For those of you outside of the US, please contact the World
Association of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts -- http://www.wagggs.org/
email wagggs at wagggsworld dot org -- and/or the USA Girl Scouts
Overseas -- http://www.girlscouts.org/who_we_are/overseas/committees/
or email kathryn.m.owen at eur dot army dot mil.
Richard, how have the New York Chapter efforts to contact the Girl
Scouts been going?
Hey folks,
I did a superfast compilation of online comments by women talking
about why they don't edit Wikipedia:
http://suegardner.org/2011/02/19/nine-reasons-why-women-dont-edit-wikipedia…
A couple of things struck me: Most of the reasons cited by women for
not editing probably apply to men too. Most are deeply rooted culture
stuff that will take time to change. And I was particularly interested
to read women saying they believe the bar for notability is higher for
the topics they write about, than it is for 'male' or 'ungendered'
topics.
Thanks,
Sue
--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Let's do a Wikipedia wide project, call it "Celebrate Women". There might
be banners featuring either articles about women, or women editors.
Featured articles during this period, of perhaps a year, would be
biographies of women or even women played significant roles in.
Lists of articles which are needed or which need improvement could be
drawn up and, of course, projects started.
By the way, work on the article "role model" is progressing and will
eventually include a section on positive, as opposed to celebrity, role
models, both male and female. I think there are quite a few resources,
once you start looking for them in terms of lists of admired women, or
men.
Fred
Re: "And I was particularly interested
to read women saying they believe the bar for notability is higher for
the topics they write about, than it is for 'male' or 'ungendered'
topics."
I posted a lengthy reply re: this on Jimbo's talk page, but from what I've
seen of toy articles and associated kids culture (cartoons etc) this is
absolutely true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&o…
I won't reiterate all of it here, but it's not that female topics are
discriminated against and treated more harsly than policy allows (though
that might happen too) but rather that male topics are actually treated with
less scrutiny and given way more leeway than policy generally proscribes. A
privilege analysis may be more fruitful here than a discrimination analysis.