Here are some more questions that I would be interested in having answers
-- What do women who are presently editing find most demotivating about
contributing to Wikipedia?
-- Have they ever thought of throwing in the towel, and what were the
-- Based on past experience, what aspect of Wikimedia/Wikipedia culture
would be most likely to cause them to stop editing at some point in the
-- What change, if any, would they welcome most to feel good about
You'd need a male control group for comparative work, to establish whether
any of the answers are gender-specific.
Crossposted to gendergap list. (Maybe someone with access to the research
mailing list might like to crosspost this thread there as well.)
On Mon, Jan 19, 2015 at 12:22 AM, LB <lightbreather2(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> I want to push a "Like" button on this one. How. Why. I would love to know
> the answer to these questions. Also, for those who aren't active - why?
> On Sun, Jan 18, 2015 at 12:14 PM, James Salsman <jsalsman(a)gmail.com>
> > Are there any surveys of active female editors which have asked how
> > they started editing?
> > _______________________________________________
> > Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines
> > Wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
> > <mailto:email@example.com?subject=unsubscribe>
> Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at:
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l,
>>>[Jonathan Cardy wrote:] "I have no problem arranging the room, putting
up a geonotice and being an attendee."
It seems to me that Jonathan is a little unclear with Lightbreather's
You are male. You make "safe" spaces unsafe by your very existence. You are
not welcome. Go away.
Sorry, well-meaning paternalistic friend, you just don't have the right
chromosomes to play.
Corvallis, OR USA
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 22:43:52 +0000
From: WereSpielChequers <werespielchequers(a)gmail.com>
To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
participation of women within Wikimedia projects."
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries. In
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
It would be very easy for us to host a two hour session in London on a
weekday evening at the UK offices. I am fairly sure we could get a bunch of
admins and others to attend, aside from some of the London regulars who
have agreed in principle, a geonotice would likely attract more.
I have no problem arranging the room, putting up a geonotice and being an
attendee. However I would need a volunteer to run the session. That isn't
just because I'm the wrong gender to run such an event, but at the moment I
don't know what changes in behaviour you would be hoping to train people
Hey all. FWIW, I definitely appreciate where this is coming from — much of
the article is very well written and contained sage advice. I'll admit that
I had mixed feelings about some of the guidance for new editors, though...
Among other things, this basically negates all outreach efforts to bring
people into the fold at edit-a-thons or other issue-based newbie workshops.
We all know that such events don't necessarily result in long-term editors,
but some of the warnings in here make Wikipedia seem like the absolute
worst place for a woman to spend one's time, and that she'd better be
prepared for a full-on barrage of harassment if she starts any editing at
all. Looking at other reactions to the article, the one tweeter clearly
wasn't alone when she declared that it all "sounds awful."
Of course, it's probably obvious to everyone on this list that many
Wikipedians do experience significant issues with trolls and bullies. And I
don't write here to suggest we sweep them under the rug. I *am* concerned
this article suggests people's experiences with gender-based harassment are
universal. And while I definitely agree with certain basic warnings about
not using your real name, etc., I'm not sure I agree with, for example,
telling ppl to make 100 edits on topics they don't care about before
getting to stuff they do care about. A better suggestion, in my view, would
be making 100 noncontroversial edits, regardless of the topic, to establish
credibility as an editor. I think knowing the difference between
potentially controversial edits and non-controversial edits would be more
important for new editors than shying away from topics one might care more
about. Many new editors may not have the patience for the latter, and I
find it fruitful to get people going with the stuff they do care about,
since this energizes them and makes them want to do more. (Or at least
gives them a positive feeling about their first contributions, which they
may draw upon at a later date when considering whether to contribute
I'm also uneasy about the suggestion to not make a profile page. Sure, if
you want to avoid gender-based trolling it is good advice to scale back —
or indeed eliminate — how much you talk about those topics on your profile
page, but not having a profile page at all makes me as a fellow editor
somewhat suspicious. I am much more likely to trust someone at face value
who is forthcoming about their Wikipedia experiences and interests than one
who does not engage with the community by introducing him or herself, even
if it's just a one-liner with a bunch of userboxes. Perhaps this is naive,
but I feel that being cautious about what one puts on a user page is
preferable to not having one. (Also, later in the article it talks about
things like liking WikiWomen on FB and Twitter or joining the GGTF. I of
course agree with doing these things to help decrease the gender gap, but
if the point of not making a profile page is to not let anyone figure out
that you as an editor care about these issues, then doing something like
joining GGTF is going to disclose this information anyway...)
I also found the following somewhat confusing: At once it is stated "Do not
let anyone bully you into leaving a subject simply because you are
passionate and persistent about it." while at the same time there is this
advice regarding challenging reversions: "if the edit summary uses “you” or
“your” aggressively; Wikipedia jargon (that an experienced editor knows a
new user would not understand); or obvious insults (often in the form of
questions such as, “Are you kidding me?”), it is time to disengage and
decide what to do next." I don't disagree with either point, but the
strategies are pretty much opposites... Perhaps more than anything, what I
stress to new editors (especially if they are female/non-male), is that
beyond learning how to physically edit articles, contributing to Wikipedia
is an exercise in contradictions — and that learning how to navigate these
contradictions does take time and patience. As such, I'd argue that knowing
where to get help, and figuring out on which fellow editors you can rely if
you run into problems — especially if it's harassment — is one of the most
important lessons for people just dipping their toes into the "colossal,
On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 7:00 AM, <gendergap-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Today's Topics:
> 1. Re: Article: How to Edit Wikipedia: Lessons from a Female
> Contributor (Andreas Kolbe)
> Message: 1
> Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2015 12:41:32 +0000
> From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466(a)gmail.com>
> To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
> participation of women within Wikimedia projects."
> Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Article: How to Edit Wikipedia: Lessons from
> a Female Contributor
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
> Thanks. I liked the simile of a "a colossal, electronic Cyclops". Very
> deftly put. :)
> It's getting a good few tweets on Twitter:
> Some interesting comments in those tweets, too:
> "Sad that I shouldn't use my own name or any username that refers to my
> gender or "female" activities for Wikipedia"
> "Sounds awful: How to Edit Wikipedia: Lessons from a Female Contributor"
> "Why yes, Wikipedia is just as horrible for women as it can possibly be. A
> wily tactical guide to making it better"
> "How to Edit #Wikipedia: Lessons from a Female Contributor. Great tips (and
> "How to Edit Wikipedia: Lessons from a Female Contributor …
> <http://t.co/iulQO72fQY> this is a little depressing eg the tips on
> On Tue, Jan 13, 2015 at 7:24 PM, LB <lightbreather2(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> > Published today by the Anita Borg Institute. Please share, if you're
> > inclined.
> > How to Edit Wikipedia: Lessons from a Female Contributor
> > <
> > Lightbreather
Tilman Bayer has, at long last, responded to inquiries about the as yet
unreleased gender split in the 2012 editor survey:
Nearly two years ago, Tilman had said:
Beckie and I have been working on the data during the last few days, and we
hope we can wrap this up soon. In any case, we still have the ambition of
keeping the timespan between the conclusion of the survey and the
publication of the first results shorter than in the preceding editors
survey. Regards, Tbayer (WMF)
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tbayer_(WMF)>) 21:13, 4 March
His recent posts to the talk page are his first contribution there since
August 2013. He says,
[...] we plan to publish a blog post which alongside other results from the
2012 survey will contain a more solid analysis of the gender ratio changes,
e.g. on a per-country basis [...]
Even so, we still do not have a schedule or date by when the results will
be made available. Sarah (Slim) and I have asked him to provide one. I have
also asked whether there are any plans for future editor surveys, and if
not, why not.
Watch that space ...
Dear people interested in the Gender Gap,
after a long long time since I last wrote on this list, let me re-introduce
myself: I'm Dirk/southpark. I'm a long time Wikipedian/Wikimedian with some
spare time in his hands and the intent to use it for something useful and
to make Wikipedia a better place..
I am not keen on re-inventing the wheel again and hope to learn from your
best practices. So I've got two questions:
(1) In the long run: which of all the gender gap programs had the most
(2) How do you know?
Thank you and all the best,
Mobil: +49 176 64 60 1026
In the next two weeks, candidates will be nominating themselves to become
stewards. Right now, of 31 stewards, only one self-identifies as a woman.
There was a point in time where this ratio was much higher (I can think of
several other women from around the world who have fulfilled this role),
but in recent years the majority of new stewards have come from the group
of global administrators and vandal-fighters, with those who vote tending
to focus on those "skills". History of leadership and stewardship (in the
true sense of the word), once valued, has come to be a genuine challenge
for new candidates, particularly if they've upset someone along the way.
There is now a more common focus on contributions across a broad array of
projects (whether or not the user can communicate in the language of the
project). The overwhelming majority of stewards today come from European
I draw this to your attention because it would be good to see a much more
diverse group of stewards in the future. Although many stewards will say
that the role has little authority and power, that it is only intended to
act on the requests of various communities, the facts are quite different.
Right now, stewards are playing *the* crucial role in determining which of
several users with the same username will get to keep that name globally,
So....some of you may want to consider a candidacy (I can think of a few on
this list who stand a good chance of success). And all of us should
seriously consider participating actively in these elections and the
annual review of current stewards  that happens concurrently.