Ach, I didn't realize they were citing research from 15 years ago. Also it
is more about the type of in-person situations that Berkeley and other
campuses have found themselves in the courts over recently, and not the
type of online harassment that WP needs to solve (not to minimize the
importance of the other issue). There was a proposal here, and discussion
on the talk page:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Harassment_consultation_2015/Ideas/Hire_a_h…
This needs to be considered in conjunction with the dispute resolution
process:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harassment_consultation_2…
The fields of law and sociology are suggested here, but I am told that
harassment is a whole field of its own, that has changed titles over the
years. I don't see any WP articles about this, even though it's very much
an issue.
If WP intends to continue to partner with GLAMs etc, they need to start
getting up to speed on the anti-discrimination codes these institutions
have to abide by. What is "title 9", "title 7"? What is
"technological
due process"? What kind of training programs are used most effective? How
are non-profit organizations dealing with this? What about other online
forums? And that is only the U.S. What are the British doing about this?
I would suggest that many organizations that are subject to federal
anti-discrimination requirements are not going to be eager to expose
themselves to lawsuits by collaborating with Wikipedia. They are going to
either keep WP at arms length by assigning these liaison duties to interns
and volunteers who are not subject to federal law or they will shun
Wikipedia completely.
Yes, articles, please. This is the future direction of the Project. We
need to understand this.
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 9:41 AM, Joseph Reagle <joseph.2011(a)reagle.org>
wrote:
On 05/04/2016 09:24 AM, Neotarf wrote:
although you would think the Gruniad would not
report on something
that was obviously flawed.
It's hard to know Gruniad's intention, given the research articles are
also relatively old (not just published or forthcoming):
1. Bingham & Scherer (2001)
2. Tinkler, Li, & Mollborn (2007)
Also TL&M (2007) don't cite B&S (2001)...
It goes without saying that a meaningful study
should have a random
selection process, although it happens all the time that researchers
can't always get ideal populations so they study the populations
they have. Unfortunately the study is behind a paywall, so you can't
see how it was designed,
Here's the appropriate bit for B&S (2001).
! We randomly assigned departments to the experimental (program
participation)
! and control (program nonparticipation) conditions. Staff and faculty
! departments were chosen from separate lists, with staff departments
organized
! by type of labor (administrative vs. nonadministrative) and faculty
! departments organized by college; this stratification procedure assured
that
! different categories of staff and faculty departments in each of the
colleges
! would be represented in the two conditions. Random selection of
departments
! rather than individuals resulted in a quasi-experimental design in which
each
! employee and combination of employees did not have an equal chance of
being
! assigned to one of the two conditions of the study. Because our unit of
! analysis was the individual employee, we explored possible sources of
bias due
! to differences between employees who were assigned to the experimental
and
! control conditions. Specifically, we compared the questionnaires
returned by
! experimental and control groups on both demographic and experiential
! variables. Pearson chi-square analyses (p ≤ .05) were performed to test
the
! associations between participation condition and each variable. The
! composition of the two respondent groups was not significantly different
in
! terms of gender, race/ethnicity, position at the university, prior
experience
! as a perpetrator of sexual harassment, experience being accused of sexual
! harassment, or experience as a sexual harassment victim. The phi
coefficients
! for this set of variables ranged from .03 to .06. These results suggest
that
! employees in the two groups were comparable in important respects prior
to the
! intervention.
So it doesn't look like it's suffering from selection bias (wherein the
abusers are sent to the training and have worse attitudes from the start).
All behind paywalls.
If someone did want to write a WP article, I'm willing to help on this
point.
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please
visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap