After reading an interesting related discussion on GenderGap, I have
queried the top 10 users of the thanks feature last month, on both the
English Wikipedia and Commons. Snapshot image attached and report link
Perhaps someone might think of a suitable barnstar and award these
folks for "being nice"? :-)
P.S. This is a long query to run, taking 20 to 30 minutes due to the
nature of the logging tables. However if someone wanted to make a
monthly summary on-wiki somewhere, part of an active "be nice"
campaign, I would be happy to set up an automated monthly report (if
someone discovers this is already reported somewhere, that's cool we
can use that).
"You can’t claim to be a data-driven company and not release more specific
numbers on how many women and people of color apply, get hired and
promoted, and stay on as employees. In the absence of meaningful public
data — especially retention data — all we have are stories. This is mine."
The article she links to is worth reading as well.
For anyone who has a hard time keeping up with current permutations of
gender theory, the* Harvard Business Review* has a useful explanation of
"What Is Second-Generation Gender Bias?" in this article side box. An
"Research has moved away from a focus on the deliberate exclusion of women
and toward investigating “second-generation” forms of gender bias as the
primary cause of women’s persistent underrepresentation in leadership
roles. This bias erects powerful but subtle and often invisible barriers
for women that arise from cultural assumptions and organizational
"In most cultures masculinity and leadership are closely linked: The ideal
leader, like the ideal man, is decisive, assertive, and independent. In
contrast, women are expected to be nice, caretaking, and unselfish. The
mismatch between conventionally feminine qualities and the qualities
thought necessary for leadership puts female leaders in a double bind.
Numerous studies have shown that women who excel in traditionally male
domains are viewed as competent but less likable than their male
counterparts. Behaviors that suggest self-confidence or assertiveness in
men often appear arrogant or abrasive in women. Meanwhile, women in
positions of authority who enact a conventionally feminine style may be
liked but are not respected. They are deemed too emotional to make tough
decisions and too soft to be strong leaders."
Sorry for cross-posting. There may be some readers of this list that may
not bother to follow the busier wikimedia-l one. :-)
I'd appreciate any thoughts and analysis, especially if there are other
reports that might give an insight into whether the number mean much or not
I have pulled together the following table together for the past 360 days,
counting whenever an image was reverted by someone who was not the last
uploader, and then attempting to find any declared gender:
2014-2015 Commons file overwrite stats compared to gender
| sex | count(*) |
| female-female | 1 |
| female-male | 110 |
| female-none | 426 |
| male-female | 139 |
| male-male | 1376 |
| male-none | 5711 |
| none-female | 479 |
| none-male | 5289 |
| none-none | 15716 |
Key: "none" means not set in user preferences, "female-male" means a woman
has overwritten a man's file and "male-none" means a declared male has
overwritten an account with no gender set.
I'd appreciate any views on whether there is any statistical meaning to be
pulled from these figures, apart from showing that men probably outnumber
women contributors by ten times on Commons.
If the email is displaying badly, you can find a wiki formatted table and
original generating SQL on the Commons village pump. I thought this
would be of wider interest as though "image revert warring" is mostly an
issue for Wikimedia Commons, it is a very similar area of heated disputes
when compared to edit revert warring on Wikipedia projects. The question
popped up from someone interested in my long running 'significant reverts'
posting here because this shows the Dutch Wikipedia to only have 11% women
editors, which is less than the English Wikipedia. WMNL is actually happy
about this number as it shows almost double improvement from 2013 when only
6% of survey respondents identified as female.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Sandra Rientjes Wikimedia Nederland <rientjes(a)wikimedia.nl>
Date: Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 12:42 PM
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Wikimedia Nederland surveys among editors and
readers of Wikipedia
To: wikimedia-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org, wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
-Apologies for cross-posting-
In June, two surveys were carried out at the request of Wikimedia
Nederland: one among editors of the Dutch language Wikipedia, and one among
the general public (the users of Wikipedia).
The first results of these surveys are now available. Below you will find
summaries of the main results, and links to the full reports.
Both surveys provide interesting insights - also in the light of the
ongoing discussion about community health. The challenge for Wikimedia
Nederland now will be to use these to develop better community support and
After the summer break, WMNL is planning a discussion with the community to
decide just that.
Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about these surveys.
*A. Survey among editors - summary of results (link to full report
*New editors*: A large majority of editors recognizes the importance of a
continuous influx of new editors and feels that new editors are welcome. To
ensure that new editors will not drop out, care and guidance of newbies
must be improved.
*Diversity*: Only 11% of the respondents are women. Everyone recognizes, to
a greater or lesser extent, the disadvantages of limited diversity among
the editors. There is large support for the theory that low participation
of women negatively affects the coverage of topics in Wikipedia. The
atmosphere on Wikipedia is most often cited as a cause for low
participation of women; women mention it much more often as a cause than
*Work Atmosphere*: Opinions are divided about the work atmosphere on the
Dutch Wikipedia. However, there are more editors dissatisfied with the
atmosphere than satisfied. The atmosphere is most frequently characterized
as quarrelsome and distrustful, and quite often also as constructive and
aggressive. A large group of editors on the Dutch Wikipedia has on occasion
been approached in a manner that they considered inappropriate; a small
group admits to having approached others in an inappropriate manner
*Conflicts and Conflict Resolution*: The number of conflicts is seen as
high by the editors. Two in five editors state that in the past six months
they have been involved in a situation that felt like a conflict.There are
different opinions on the resolution of the conflicts. There are more
editors who indicate that conflicts are only sometimes or (almost) never
solved in a good way, than those who say this usually or always happens in
a good way. What is also striking is that a fairly large group has no
opinion on the number of conflicts and/or solution thereof.
Egos and stubbornness are considered to play a major role in the emergence
of conflict. Rules/guidelines and moderation by trained people are often
put forward as a solution.
*Communication*: The dialogue (communication) between editors is fragmented
across many channels and occurs in particular via talk pages. The editors
rarely communicate with each outside of Wikipedia, either in person or
online via social media. Wikimedia mailing lists, blogs, newsletters or
notice pages are not frequently read, and attendance of Wikimedia-organized
events in the Netherlands or abroad is limited.
*Wikimedia Nederland*: A large majority of respondents is familiar with
Wikimedia Nederland and about a quarter of the respondents is currently
also a member. (This is not representative of the overall population of
editors - we estimate 10% of active edtiors are members) Generally, the
respondents are satisfied with the (kind of) work WMNL does.
*B. Survey among readers (users) of Wikipedia - summary of results (link
to full report)
*Knowledge and use of Wikipedia are high, as is satisfaction.*
· Knowledge of Wikipedia and the number of users of Wikipedia have
increased significantly in recent years (2013-2015). Four in five Dutch
people now know about, and use, Wikipedia.
· Levels/frequency of use of Wikipedia have not increased. It is
possible that new users use Wikipedia less intensively.
· More than one tenth of Dutch people said they had installed the
Wikipedia app. That is a very high number.
· In general terms, a large majority thought the articles were very
readable and easy to use. The number of people who thought this was
slightly down on 2013.
*Awareness of matters relating to Wikipedia is falling*
· These are matters such as: the fact that everybody can post and
edit articles, that all text and photos are freely available and that
Wikipedia does not have any profit motive.
· This may also be linked to the arrival of new users who, for the
time being, may be less well-informed.*Slight increase in willingness to
· There was a slight increase in the willingness to contribute
between 2013 and 2015. The main reasons people would not wish to write or
edit an article continue to be that people are not interested and/or would
not know what to write about.
Directeur/Executive Director Wikimedia Nederland
tel. (+31) (0)30 3200238
mob. (+31) (0)6 31786379
*Postadres*: * Bezoekadres:*
Postbus 167 Mariaplaats 3
3500 AD Utrecht Utrecht
Wiki-research-l mailing list
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pine W <wiki.pine(a)gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Aug 7, 2015 at 1:56 PM
Subject: Seeking comments and translations for proposed video project
Dear Wikimedia colleagues:
I am developing a proposal for a video series that's designed to introduce
Wikimedia to new contributors (particularly in GLAM and education
programs), and to motivate them to participate in the community in a
constructive way. I would appreciate your input. The video is intended for
translation into multiple languages; there are already volunteers for
Spanish and German translation.
The proposal's main draft page is here:
The proposal talk page is here; it includes a draft outline of specific
subjects to cover:
Please note that the scope and budget of the project are still under
consideration. At this point it would be especially helpful to have input
on the subjects that the video should cover, and how best to cover them.
This information will help as the project scope and budget are refined.
Please add your questions and comments to the talk page.
If you would like to support the project with your endorsement, please do
If you would like to volunteer to translate the video, please email me or
comment on the talk page.
Thanks and regards,
---------- Forwarded message ----------
WikiConference USA 2015 will be held *October 9–11* at the U.S. National
Archives in Washington, D.C.
Registration and scholarship applications are open. Session proposals may