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
[...]