WMF could put up funding for research to be done by experts.

On Jul 6, 2012 2:06 PM, <koltzenburg@w4w.net> wrote:

Hi John

> havent seen similar quality academic studies about LGBT within the
> wikimedia community -
> these studies tend to be very simplistic due to lack
> if understanding or inadequate funding, and/or riddled with bias without
> explanation.

so here we can definitely point to a common concern (re the list focus of both gendergap and lgbt):
see e.g.
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2012-June/002905.html
and earlier ones in the same thread

John / @all: do you have any suggestion as to what do about this?

cheers
Claudia

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 13:28:18 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote
> Hi Claudia. There are good numbers for LGBT in real world populations, and
> the people doing the studies are all to aware of the problems with their
> numbers - there are journals dedicated to research in this discipline. i
> havent seen similar quality academic studies about LGBT within the
> wikimedia community - these studies tend to be very simplistic due to lack
> if understanding or inadequate funding, and/or riddled with bias without
> explanation.
> On Jul 6, 2012 1:11 PM, <koltzenburg@w4w.net> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
> > > I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap.
> >
> > my impression is that there certainly are gender gaps in LGBTIQA*
> > communities - if ever non-heterosexual
> > people are happy to be lumped together just because of not identifying
> > non-heterosexual, that is ... -
> >
> > irrespective of whether we define "gender" in two (female / male) or in
> > many (like in LGBTIQA*, with *
> > including heterosexuals of whatever gender)
> >
> > and also, yes, I also think that there is a widespread gender gap between
> > non-heterosexuals and
> > heterosexuals, "widespread" meaning: in many cultures (and that bisexuals
> > are the freest and hence could
> > act as the bridge-builders for such a gender gap in a very nice way, it
> > seems to me)
> >
> > > The point of the
> > [LGBT]
> > > list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation
> > > like gendergap is.
> >
> > why is this not intended, Tom?
> > see also the following:
> >
> > On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:35:21 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote
> > > I agree, mostly, but. . my understanding is that the surveys (ignoring
> > the
> > > faults in them) indicate LGBT may actually be over-represented in
> > wikimedia
> > > when compared to the distribution expected by real-world population
> > > studies; in both men and women. Im not saying this is bad, but that it
> > > does not appear that there is a LGBT systemic gap that needs a strategic
> > > approach to solving.
> >
> > maybe there is another methodological issue here?
> > why would you want to ignore the faults in wikimedia surveys but not in
> > outcomes of any study that
> > purports to "verify" (or whatever) "the distribution expected by
> > real-world population studies"?
> >
> > how can anyone who is doing "real-world population studies" expect to find
> > out anything reliable about the
> > size of a community who members are still facing systematic social and
> > political attempts at silencing (about
> > their way of life) by their adversaries of whatever inclination?
> >
> > maybe, hence, it would be more realistic to compare non-real-world results
> > to the wikimedia results?
> > hypothesis: "over-represented" would start with 51% LGBTIQA* but not below
> > :-)
> >
> > anyway, I am not sure I agree with Tom's list of differences between the
> > [gendergap] and [LGBT] lists and
> > will come back to this later since I think it is more important to see
> > what these two lists have in common :-)
> > so I like John's argument that we might learn from each other!
> >
> > cheers
> > Claudia
[...]

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap