it would be cool if we published more on meta, particularly with ideas and solutions. With a full time job, I some times hard to follow all the emails (even though i really want to).

I also I think it would beneficial to identify some people that would be willing to do volunteering for their regional area, or maybe meet in RL. Person to person events do wonders to compliment virtual exchanges.

But overall, I think we've had some very good convos.



On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardner@wikimedia.org> wrote:
Hey folks,

Erik Moeller, my deputy, created this group at my request, and so I'm
its owner. To recap for anyone who doesn't know: this list was
prompted by a January 31 New York Times story about Wikipedia's gender
gap. The NY Times story prompted a lot of discussion among experienced
Wikipedians, new editors, and external people such as researchers and
academics. We created this list so that the discussion had somewhere
to go -- because people wanted to help, and we wanted to give their
energy and momentum a place to grow.

Thus far, I haven't made any attempts to moderate or shape the
conversation here in any way. People who are used to Wikimedia lists
probably are finding the experience here pretty familiar -- the
conversation is unstructured, wide-ranging, and there's no real
quality control. People who are more used to non-Wikimedia lists might
find it TOO uncontrolled, too noisy, too wide-ranging: I don't know.

My hope when we started the list was that it would be a place where
people could come together to share experiences and information about
the causes of Wikipedia's gender gap, and kick around possible
solutions. I hoped that, at worst, it could become a sort of talkfest
and "centre of expertise" on the gender gap issue --- and at best, it
would be a place where real work would happen (e.g., the Women Edit
Wikipedia Month type stuff). I assumed it'd be a pretty loose
conversation, with plenty of noise to the signal, and it would end up
(like many of our lists) being supplemented by work on wiki pages.

And that, I think, is pretty much how it's playing out.

So I'm curious to know from the people here:

1) Is the conversation here pretty much what you expected? Is it
better or worse than you expected -- and if so, in what ways?

2) Are you comfortable with this discusson being mostly unmoderated,
or would you prefer that we had some simple behavioural
rules-of-engagement?

3) Would anyone care to offer to help me moderate? The moderation has
been pretty light so far: a few people with questions about how to do
something, and a half-dozen posts stuck in the approval queue --- it's
very easy stuff to handle. I am often in meetings though, or
travelling, so I've felt bad when someone's question or post is
pending for hours. If you want to help, let me know off-list :-)

4) Any other comments about what we're doing here -- including, ideas
about how we can be more effective.

Thanks,
Sue


--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation

415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell

Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!

http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate

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



--
Sandra Ordonez
Web Astronaut

"Helping you rock out in the virtual world."

www.collaborativenation.com