Dear all,
Just wanted to let you know about some interesting contributions to the
Wikimedia article gender balance from a slightly unexpected source.
On Saturday, Wikimedia UK had a World War I-themed Editathon[1], where we
essentially put a lot of Wikimedians and a group of academics in a room and
asked them to help improve coverage of World War I.
The gender balance was markedly better amongst the academics we'd invited
(4 men, 3 women) than among the Wikimedians (20 men, no women at all) -
which prompted quite a lot of debate about gender balance among Wikimedia
volunteers (not very good) and also about the gender balance of Wikipedia's
coverage of the topic (also, not very good!). It might also be that we'd
taken a lot of steps to promote the event amongst the English Wikipedia's
large and active military history community (which probably has worse than
average gender balance, at a guess).
I'm pleased to say that one of the outcomes from the event is an article,
currently in sandbox but well worthy of a DYK nom when in due course, on
the topic of "Surplus women" - a demographic imbalance that existed (or was
perceived) in Western Europe in the industrial era, accentuated by the mass
slaughter of World War I, and hitherto completely absent from Wikipedia.
You can have a look at it here :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ErrantX/Sandbox/Surplus_women
Many thanks,
Chris
Wikimedia UK
[1] http://uk.wikimedia.org/wiki/World_War_I/World_War_I_Editathon
Interesting information about the gender balance on social networking
site. No surprise that Pinterest is female dominated, but a few other
things there too.
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Wmfall] Gender balance on social networking sites
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 18:09:45 -0700
From: Dario Taraborelli <dtaraborelli(a)wikimedia.org>
To:
David McCandless published an updated version of his "chicks rule" infographic with data from May 2012:
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/chicks-rule/
The data, obtained via Google Ad Planner, is here:
http://bit.ly/chicksrule
Wikipedia is not in the list but you can look it up here:
http://www.google.com/adplanner/planning/site_profile#siteDetails?identifie…
(you will need a Google account to log in)
Note that these figures are for visitors, not contributors.
Dario
_______________________________________________
>
>
>Message: 2
>Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 08:02:39 +1000
>From: Laura Hale <laura(a)fanhistory.com>
>To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>Subject: Re: [Gendergap] what follows from "most editors do not
> gender-identify"
>Message-ID:
> <CAGaPgkTx2HgWR1CkYuMmSTtmpnY5WawBeBpfQE6abVXnj0xxDw(a)mail.gmail.com>
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>On Tue, Jun 19, 2012 at 1:29 AM, Adam Wight <spam(a)ludd.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>> IMO, recruiting more women editors is an excellent way to
>> combat that bias, because it doesn't presuppose we know how to fix the
>> problem... only that we know some people who can do the job.
>>
>>
>At the end of the day, I'd need to see data which supports this as a
>theory. I've been involved in the fan fiction writing community for more
>years than I would care to count before taking a two year break. The
>community probably has the inverse gender proportion of English Wikipedia.
>One of the CONTINUAL problems is that women do not write about female
>characters. They often ignore them. More women write male/male erotica
>inside the female dominated fan fiction community than women write
>female/female erotica. (And in some communities, female writers of
>male/male fan fiction outnumber the female writers of male/female fan
>fiction inside a specific fan community.) I know of a few female
>contributors who edit sport articles, but rarely edit women's sport
>articles.
>
>Do you have any data to back up the theory that women will write women's
>content?
>
>
>
>This is a good point. I wonder if it's a matter of the women most likely to be feminism-aware, or assertive enough, to forge ahead into non-traditional roles, also being inclined towards a tendency to shun female-oriented topics in favour of doing something like entering the male sphere to write about men's topics? Back when female journalists were relegated to the pink ghetto female-interest columns, with the Agony Aunt stuff and the recipe column, they struggled to get different assignments. And women fiction writers were only acceptable if they wrote children's books and the like. I think perhaps some women writers are caught in a bind, they don't want to be confined to fluffy female-oriented topics like Spring fashions, but then on the other hand, they don't want to be pigeon-holed as a "feminist", and then get stereotyped by other writers or editors as a "feminazi" who can't write about anything beyond that. Being labelled as a vocal feminist is
still pejorative to many people, there's a definite stigma in certain circles, and it's tough to break out of that double bind predicament.
>
>
>
>I just want to add a suggestion that I haven't seen really discussed, and that is the idea of supporting more diversity among male editors as a way of making an encyclopedia that would be more inviting for potential female editors. It's a lot harder, if not impossible, for women to make much progress in growing their numbers without male supporters who aren't afraid to be vocal when they see a need, and help bridge that gap... Just because there are topics about women that haven't been written yet, doesn't mean they necessarily have to be started by an editor identifying as female.
>
>
>In the long run, however, it will be mostly women who will write articles on topics of particular concern to women. I recall adding info to the Dowry article, I cited a source that discussed how dowry killings gained more coverage in India's newspapers when they began hiring more female journalists in the 1970s. Hard news articles on women's issues are most often suggested by female journalists and female editors, at least that is my anecdotal impression. I think it was the Ladies' Home Journal that was once entirely edited by men, until a group of feminist writers staged a revolt in the 1970s and had women brought into the magazine's editorial board....must look that up, and perhaps add the info to WP if it isn't there yet.
Dear esteemed colleagues,
I'm enjoying the gendergap list, but I'm getting confused about what each message is referring to. It might be good to state your topic instead of using, 'he', 'she', and 'they.' With a few relatively concurrent topics under discussion, which is fine, I want to make sure I am following, without having to go through several days of email strings. It doesn't seem like a bad idea to make that url on your topic available, either. As I scroll down, you lose me, I see no name for the person under discussion and no link either, might be hidden in the list underbrush...
I recently referred to Anita S. I don't know her, don't know how she would be contacted, Andreas. I don't know if she contributes to Wikipedia, even. Anyone who might have weighed in without first exploring the nature of her work missed it's essence. Evidence is useful to this forum and its mission.
KSRolph
Thank you Risker/Anne
for this statement which I think is true:
> (most editors do not gender-identify ...
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2012-June/002876.html
what follows from this is, in my opinion, that any specific-looking numbers the Wikimedia Foundation (e.g.,
Wikipedia editor survey) chooses to have published about how many women act as editors should not be
trusted and hence not be perpetuated
and best not in our list description, either...
"The most recent Wikipedia editor survey indicates that the percentage of female contributors in Wikimedia
projects is approximately nine percent."
could this starting sentence be changed, maybe, to reflect the fact stated by Anne/Risker and not feed into
such a seemingly negatively perceived climate in the first place?
ah, yes, this is me again, trying to raise some awareness also about the promotional paradoxes in results
created by patriarchally-inspired statistics exercises that purport to come up with facts,
apologies if this makes you groan, maybe again,
I will stick to my point though until I hear better arguments - which, certainly, I am happy to take on this
point
:-) thanks & cheers,
Claudia
koltzenburg(a)w4w.net
Dear Wikipedia gender topic colleagues,
I've read the strings and visited Ms. Sarkeesian's Wikipedia and self-published website, Feminist Frequency, as well as Kickstarter, and Forbes write up about the Wikipedia Sarkeesian article debacle ("W-SAD").
I weigh in on Ms. Sarkeesian's behalf about notability. Let's give her a chance to advance the eternal cause of feminine value and voice. She has extraordinary, and even visionary ideas, and deserves our temperance and admiration. She is not just a blogger. She is not someone who will become less meaningful and whose sole impact on society will be only the W-SAD. She is one of ours, a gem who comes out swinging.
If a page about her went up prematurely, let us watch it evolve, and take heart, celebrating her crowdsourcing success and ability to challenge stereotypes of the type W-SAD manifests. This does not mean I am suggesting she will be world famous in 100 years. The Feminist cause and its merits find far too few role models. Girl gamers and gender specialists are going to appreciate having this article and its referencing and links to turn to. The story is cautionary, and ever-so current. If we have something to be skeptical about, time will clarify why.
Please, let us give Ms. Sarkeesian's work encouragement to flourish, and see what this dynamic woman does for the gender gap in space and time. I'm of the conviction there is profound social importance in this provocative artist's ideas.
KSRolph
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I think I brought this up in another post about developing a methodology to
determine this based on a number of offline conversations I was having. As
this might be of interest to people doing research on women's involvement
for Wikipedia, I'm crossposting this here from my blog. The entry can be
found at
http://ozziesport.com/2012/06/measuring-the-influence-of-wikipedia-on-publi….
It isn't necessarily the one I will ultimately use when I set out to
do
this, but working to set up some of the tools to allow measuring for this
in the near future. If anyone has any thoughts on how to better measure
the influence of Wikipedia for public thought formation, especially as it
pertains to women's issues, that would be much appreciated.
*
*
*Measuring the influence of Wikipedia on public thinking (in Australian
women’s sport): A proposed methodology*
This entry was posted by Laura on Monday, 18 June, 2012
I spend a lot of time thinking about Wikipedia and talking to people in
Australia’s sport sector about Wikipedia, Wikinews and Commons. Some of
those I have talked to tend to agree that Wikipedia has value, potentially
more value than a news story from a traditional outlet where the story
quickly disappear. There is still a question of: “Why does Wikipedia
matter?” The most obvious answer is “Page views demonstrate meaning.
People are going to Wikipedia for information about sport, Australian
sport, and women’s sport. The page views clearly demonstrate that
Wikipedia matters and is worth contributing to as an organisation.” This
argument doesn’t always work and I’ve been challenged to demonstrate
Wikipedia’s influence on the topic of Australian women’s sport.
This is in some ways a frustrating endeavor. How do you measure
Wikipedia’s influence beyond page views? As a person who loves research
design, I have a number of ideas but how to implement and analyze
information is still something I am struggling with because I keep coming
back to the need to possibly use a qualitative approach reliant on survey
research… and that always makes me nervous. Still, with this in mind, the
following methodology is one I have been leaning towards trying to write up
more formally.
*
Benchmark English Wikipedia, English Wikinews and Commons coverage of
Australian women’s sport:*
Develop a list of all existing articles pertaining to Australian
women’s sport on English Wikipedia. The list would include biographies,
sport teams, leagues, organisations and people connected to administering
women’s sport, competitions, articles about women’s sport in the country,
articles about sport in the country, general sport articles that broadly
intersect with Australian women’s sport such as women’s basketball and the
Olympic games. Once the list is created, benchmark the following for each
article:
Determine the existing size of the article.
Identify projects the article is part of.
Identify current article assessment.
Date article was created and who created it.
Determine the number of contributors to the article.
Determine the gender ratio for article contributors.
Determine the geographic location of article contributors.
Determine the historic page views for the article.
Determine if the article has appeared at Did you Know, and average
traffic before and after it appeared.
Determine if there is a spoken word version of the article.
Count the number of pictures on each article.
Develop a list of all existing news stories about Australian women’s
sport on English Wikinews.
Determine the historical traffic to these articles.
Identify the categories these articles are included in.
Identify if the article is synthesis or original research.
Identify all Wikipedia articles the story is linked on.
Develop a list of all photographs pertaining to Australian women’s
sport on Commons.
Develop a list what articles these images are used on across
Wikimedia Foundation projects.
Develop a list of contributors for images in this space.
This data will provide a framework for understanding the story of
Australian women’s sport coverage on Wikipedia, and will enable case
studies to be developed around any potential editing efforts affiliated
with a study. This data is largely background, which can help to
contextualise data around Wikipedia as it pertains to influence thought
formation.
*Benchmark interest in English Wikipedia, English Wikinews and Commons
coverage of Australian women’s sport:*
The next step is possibly the more difficult one: How do we contextualise
Wikipedia articles to understand where they sit as resources people turn to
for information? Below are quantitative, web based measures to try to
determine this:
The News
Find the number of articles in the media that link to/mention an
article on Wikipedia about a topic.
Check articles about a topic to find examples of media plagiarism
of Wikipedia articles.
Academia
Identify the number of times an academic text uses Wikipedia as a
source.
Identify which academics reference Wikipedia.
Sport Institutions
Count the number of links to Wikimedia content on their website.
Count the number of links to Wikimedia content on their social
media related portals.
The Community
Facebook
Measure the number of likes for a Wikipedia article on Facebook.
Twitter
Measure the number of links to an article.
Identify who is tweeting about the article, get their
individual Twitter metric data.
Get the metric data for all the followers of a person tweeting
about a topic.
Google+
Measure the number of links to an article.
Identify who is tweeting about the article, get their
individual Google+ information.
LiveJournal and clones
Measure the number of mentions for an article on LiveJournal
and its clones.
Get the community or user metrics for including the links.
Google search
Determine the ranking of the Wikipedia and Wikinews articles on
Google.
Using Google Trends, determine the relative number of searches
for these topics and where they are origination from, both with and without
Wikipedia in the search phrase.
Yahoo!Answers
Measure the number of questions about the topic. (Closed, and
open.)
Measure the number of questions on Wikipedia about articles.
Measure the number of answers that reference the article.
While these can help measure a certain level of influence, they do not
necessarily explain why people are citing or how this forms thinking.
Results would just suggest current levels of awareness but not necessarily
influence. The two are really separate points.
*Survey attitudes towards English Wikipedia, English Wikinews and Commons
coverage of Australian women’s sport:*
A third methodology is needed to complement the previous two. As much as
it pains me, a qualitative methodology needs to be used: Survey work needs
to be completed. The following groups need to be surveyed with questions
seeking specific information in certain areas. The following are some
broad themes for this group.
The media
As a journalist, what is their opinion of Wikipedia in this area?
Have they used Wikipedia, Wikinews or other projects as a resource
when working on a story?
Academics and students
As an academic or student, what is their opinion of Wikipedia in
this area?
Have they used Wikipedia, Wikinews or other projects as a resource
when working on papers?
Sport industry participants including athletes
As members of the sport industry, what is their opinion of
Wikipedia in this area?
Have they actively sought to improve content related to themselves
or their sport organisation on WMF projects?
Sport fans and participants
Do they use Wikipedia for information and how reliable do they
consider it to be?
Do they contribute to Wikipedia?
This information would then need to be wrapped around existing research
that discusses the influence of the media, in this case in an Australian
and sport context, academia and industry influence on forming public
perception. An approach also needs to be developed which can include a
before and after treatment for a content improvement drive in this area.
In doing the first part, it should hopefully become apparent where there is
a need for articles to be improved or created to develop a class of
articles for improvement.
Sincerely,
Laura Hale
--
twitter: purplepopple
blog: ozziesport.com
Hi everyone, I wanted to forward the below message about the Grant
Advisory Committee. I'm not sure the gender of all participants, but,
I'm sure it's primarily a male based group of candidates at this time. I
encourage you to sign up if you seek to support Wikimedians seeking
grant support from chapters and the Wikimedia Foundation. A more
balanced gender of participants can lead to not only a more balanced
viewpoint on funding, but also may encourage more women to apply for
grants.
Great to also see our own Cindy up for the running :) Thanks Cindy for
volunteering!
-Sarah
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Wikimedia-l] The Grant Advisory Committee is expanding!
Date: Tue, 12 Jun 2012 14:55:18 -0700
From: Asaf Bartov <abartov(a)wikimedia.org>
Reply-To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
To: Wikimedia Mailing List <wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Reminder: The Grant Advisory Committee is expanding. If you'd like to help
grantees and the Foundation in its grantmaking, consider submitting your
candidacy here:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Candidates
Cheers,
Asaf
On Mon, Jun 4, 2012 at 5:33 PM, Asaf Bartov<abartov(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>
> The Wikimedia Foundation would like to expand its Grant Advisory
> Committee[1], and we would like you to consider whether you might be
> interested in volunteering in that capacity.
>
> The GAC (as it is affectionately known) is an advisory body performing a
> double function in relation to the Wikimedia Foundation's Grants Program[3]
> --
>
> 1. The GAC advises grant applicants on how to improve and clarify their
> proposals and their plans. This often extends to advice not just about how
> to secure the funds, but how to improve the planning of the project/event
> or what precedents to look at, for positive or negative examples.
> 2. The GAC advises the Foundation on the mission fit, frugality, and
> expected impact of grant proposals, expressing support or concerns about
> open grant proposals.
>
> If this sounds like something you might want to help with, please review
> the description of the GAC[1] and the membership criteria[2]. If you think
> you meet the criteria, add your name to the candidates page[4] with a brief
> statement demonstrating your meeting the criteria. This is to be an open
> process, and the number of seats on the GAC is not predetermined; we expect
> all qualifying candidates to be admitted into the GAC.
>
> Please help us reach potential volunteers by sharing/forwarding this
> announcement in appropriate community mailing lists.
>
> Finally, I'd like to thank the incumbent members of the GAC (founded
> exactly one year ago), who are putting in their time and experience and
> have been making a real difference in our grantmaking this past year.
>
> Thank you,
>
> Asaf
>
> [1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Committee
> [2]
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Membership_criteria
> [3] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Index
> [4] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grant_Advisory_Committee/Candidates
> --
> Asaf Bartov
> Wikimedia Foundation<http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
>
>
--
Asaf Bartov
Wikimedia Foundation<http://www.wikimediafoundation.org>
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the
sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
https://donate.wikimedia.org
_______________________________________________
Wikimedia-l mailing list
Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l