I think that this call is a great idea and my class on women's health and human rights is an all female class that will begin to post to Wikipedia, albeit for a grade.
----------
From: Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net>
Date: Sun, 20 Feb 2011 18:34:48 -0500
To: Sue Gardner <sgardner(a)wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Nine Reasons Women Don't Edit Wikipedia
> On 20 February 2011 14:24, Marc Riddell <michaeldavid86(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Sue, as you know, this is the area of my greatest concern regarding the
>> future of the Wikipedia Project. The gender gap is a part of the larger
>> problem you described above: That of a combative, hostile and defensive
>> culture that presents an unchecked arena for Community Member harassment and
>> abuse - that prevents the type of healthy, intelligent and productive
>> collaboration that can, and will, improve and maintain the quality of the
>> Project. Is there, are there, plans to mount a similar initiative to tackle
>> this larger problem? To approach it as a gender-neutral problem?
>
on 2/20/11 5:46 PM, Sue Gardner at sgardner(a)wikimedia.org wrote:
> Yes, absolutely. And it's not just plans: people are actively working
> on the issue, today. This is the primary work of the Community
> department at the Wikimedia Foundation -- the staff there are
> currently working with community members on a bunch of projects and
> activities to help make the Wikimedia projects more inclusive. A lot
> of that is happening on the outreach wiki -- for example, the Account
> Creation improvement project, the Bookshelf project, the Ambassador
> program, support for student campus associations, and so forth.
>
> http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Account_Creation_Improvement_Project
> http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bookshelf_Project
> http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_Ambassador_Program
> http://outreach.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_student_clubs
>
> There's also some outreach-related/outreach-supportive activities that
> have been announced on the Wikimedia blog:
>
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2011/01/12/new-wikimedia-fellow/
> http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/11/30/upload-wizard-launches-beta-wikim…
> a-commons/
>
http://blog.wikimedia.org/blog/2010/09/30/two-new-community-department-fello
ws> /
>
> I agree with you Marc that our central challenge is the need for deep
> culture change, to help Wikimedia be more inclusive and open. I think
> the gender challenge is part of that, but it's obviously not the whole
> story: we need more women, and we also need more editors from outside
> North America and Europe, as well as other underrepresented groups.
> And we want current editors to be having better, more positive
> experiences on the projects, as well.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
Thank you, for this, Sue. And, at the most basic level, we a faced with the
reality that this cultural change can only begin, and grow, at the most
basic level: The individual. Sue, there are key persons in the Project that,
by virtue of their official position or, simply because they are more
frequently vocal on the various Project conversation sites, who must lead by
example. Each one must be actively working toward this healthier culture.
They, and all of us, must set the tone. I truly believe that if the climate
is healthy, the culture will be also.
Marc
Since listing role models has been challenged on WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST
grounds, I have created http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Role_models to study
the utility of listing role models in the encyclopedia. It currently
includes four citations and abstracts from the peer reiewed secondary
medical literature and the links to sources suggested by Andreas Kolbe.
Oliver makes a very good point about
statements regarding 'men think _____'.
Statements of 'women are/do/think _____ '
are distracting, plus they're usually
at their baseline, insulting.
It's the overgeneralization, and the mind-
reading implicit in these statements
that render them counter-productive.
The actions recently initiated
by independent groups
to invite women to participate
in Wikipedia are wonderful.
These events announce
that women are wanted and
accepted as experts, and will
be supported as such by
Wikipedia.
A successful campaign effort
could be as conceptually simple
as a continous PR push to invite
women are to participate. No
need to bog down so much in the
why. Do the research, and act
on it, but go ahead with the
active recruitment.
All people at their foundation seek
pleasure and avoid pain (I don't mean
this in a shallow way). Letting
women know that Wikipedia is working
to make contribution a less-than-painful
endeavor may prove to be the
majority of the battle, although it would
take a campaign that lasts more than a month.
One month to kick off a year-long campaign is certainly
appropriate. A year-long campaign is also
appropriate because we need to reach
50% of the population! The heterogeneity
inherit in such a large population means
that many of the results returned from
studies will apply to one sector but not
the rest. Therefore the invitation to
contribute will most likely be the
most effective approach. Any approach
based on 'women are ___' will be cultural,
will be expensive to determine,
and will apply to subsets of women,
and not to the majority of
women worldwide, outside of the
change in women's status during the
last 150 years. It's nice to be able to
own a business, and it's nice that
it's no longer legal for a husband to
beat his wife with a stick (rule of thumb!)
in most places where I could easily
travel.
:D
I'm not saying to cease investigation
for solutions to Wikipedia's issues.
The areas of proposed investigation
are all worthwhile. And totalled up
the results will benefit everyone, not
just women, as the current state of
these areas are offensive (content)
disenfranchising (inappropriate editing),
or barriers to contribution (interface) to
both men and women.
The historical reasons for the lower percentage
of women in science and technology
are mostly the same reasons women aren't
participating on Wikipedia. There will
be a few differences, but on the whole
moving forward is just as important
as studying why. The studying why
is very expensive, and has been going
on for decades. Let's just get on with
it, and put out the PR that we are
celebrating and requesting women's
participation as experts on the
Wikipedia site.
- Susan
Message: 3
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:14:57 +0000
From: Oliver Keyes <scire.facias(a)gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Women4Wikipedia
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
<gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
Message-ID:
<AANLkTinh-T23spCSVmeM2WrD1zd43hdCa9v+PLDHOxZY(a)mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Could we maybe not make big overgeneralisations about what "men" think and
return to the topic at hand? This mailing list shouldn't be about
discrediting the intentions of feminists. Neither should it be about
discrediting the intentions of men, or working on the assumption that
somebody can't be both.
I've been off line and just catching up on the entries, so some of this is
in response to older posts.
I've never been on the pornography pages of Wikipedia or any of the ones
cited as offensive. The topics are not ones I research or write about.
Seeing them on this list, has no effect on my interest in the parts of
Wikipedia that are important to my work and have no effect on my interest in
improving articles or writing articles that would better represent women's
perspectives and women themselves. I don't like what I saw; find some it
childish and some of it malicious. Just like life. I think there are some
women whose views and experience are in life would lead them away from
Wikipedia because of those articles; but there are many women in the world
and not everything is everyone's cup of tea.
If the Wikimedia Foundation wants to get more women editing, the answer is
hard work and an investment of money and a willingness to preference efforts
to convince women to edit. This preference is not about exclusivity or
affirmative action, it is what we all do when we want to change something.
Put energy, time and money into that aspect of things.
1, assign staff or hire staff to reach out to women; they will do research,
develop lists, write materials that point out the benefits to women and
women's issues of editing.
2. consult with women experts, heads of women's professional and advocacy
organizations about how to reach women editors.
3. Develop a training program and send Ambassadors to women oriented
meetings, groups etc and help people who are interested get started
4. To deal with the perception or reality that there are behaviors among
editors that are off putting to women ( and probably to men); develop tips
for women about how to be resilient in the face of that in the context of
Wikipedia culture
I have no idea what effect the various technology stuff have on editors of
any gender and think until more women are recruited and convinced it is in
their interest to edit and can tell us if the technology is a barrier, it id
of less concern. This is an organizing job not an IT thing.
This list is useful, but this is not rocket science. It is just hard work
the foundation needs to do and that work can ultimately be evaluated.
Frances Kissling, visiting scholar
Center for Bioethics, UPenn
202 368 3954
It has occurred to me to wonder what Wikipedia would look like if 85% of its editors were female?
regards
Rosie Williams
http://women4wikipedia
@collectiveact