Regarding the article (well done and interesting, thank you), there was a mention of the authors tracking "if the target was still contributing to English Wikipedia following the threat" but I didn't spot the followup in the article for any results to that .... Did someone else? Were actual stats reported?

Also, what seems like a related question, but again, was it brought up or did I miss it: if productivity is presented as an argument for accepting bad behavior, has anyone actually done any statistical correlation or tracking of content productivity of people who've used abusive terminology as compared to those who don't?
Thanks, Mary

On Sat, Nov 22, 2014 at 7:00 AM, <gendergap-request@lists.wikimedia.org> wrote:
Send Gendergap mailing list submissions to
        gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        gendergap-request@lists.wikimedia.org

You can reach the person managing the list at
        gendergap-owner@lists.wikimedia.org

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of Gendergap digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while female (Netha Hussain)
   2. Re: [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while female
      (Ryan Kaldari)
   3. Re: [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while female (Risker)
   4. Mention of Wikipedia data base in PBS article (Carol Moore dc)
   5. Re: [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while female
      (Kevin Gorman)
   6. Re: [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while female (Risker)
   7. Re: [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while female
      (Kevin Gorman)
   8. Re: [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while female (Risker)
   9. Re: [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while female
      (Kevin Gorman)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 23:13:29 +0530
From: Netha Hussain <nethahussain@gmail.com>
To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Subject: [Gendergap] [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while
        female
Message-ID:
        <CACP3XfrkDiWyiqZbiXZYEbwW06cjvVSUs5uY5aStukm-=DB8bA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Dear all,

 I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about "Communicating on
Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word cunt
on English Wikipedia user talk pages" on meta wiki. The link to the
research page is here:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female

Regards
Netha

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Laura Hale <laura@fanhistory.com>
Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM
Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>


Hey,

I posted some new research to meta at
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
.  It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive
analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages.
Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list.

Sincerely,
Laura Hale

--
twitter: purplepopple

_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l




--
Netha Hussain
Student of Medicine and Surgery
Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode
Blogs :
*nethahussain.blogspot.com
<http://nethahussain.blogspot.com>swethaambari.wordpress.com
<http://swethaambari.wordpress.com>*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20141121/144c703d/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 11:55:52 -0800
From: Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org>
To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
        participation   of women within Wikimedia projects."
        <gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while
        female
Message-ID:
        <CACT3B=VRED0Px3Rfp45oFDVg9y57XgwuyeBOc5GKWV9UfjFC6g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited as a
"radical feminist" though :)

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain <nethahussain@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Dear all,
>
>  I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about "Communicating
> on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word
> cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages" on meta wiki. The link to the
> research page is here:
>
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
>
> Regards
> Netha
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Laura Hale <laura@fanhistory.com>
> Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM
> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female
> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>
>
> Hey,
>
> I posted some new research to meta at
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
> .  It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive
> analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages.
> Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list.
>
> Sincerely,
> Laura Hale
>
> --
> twitter: purplepopple
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
>
>
>
> --
> Netha Hussain
> Student of Medicine and Surgery
> Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode
> Blogs :
> *nethahussain.blogspot.com
> <http://nethahussain.blogspot.com>swethaambari.wordpress.com
> <http://swethaambari.wordpress.com>*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20141121/247870e4/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 3
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:33:18 -0500
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
        participation   of women within Wikimedia projects."
        <gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while
        female
Message-ID:
        <CAPXs8yTKx3jm6DDo-dHDcsuUbg_HapVZ+voVE7oYL1nrggt7ZA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I also find it very interesting.

I have, however, asked Laura to redact the identifying information of one
of the editors whose actions are incorporated into this research. Research
rarely includes publishing identifying information about specific
individuals, particularly without the direct permission of those
individuals.  Regardless of what any of us think of the specific editor who
is named, it behooves us all to act as we would expect to be treated - and
I'd be pretty ticked if someone published research that included examples
that identified me by name.

Risker/Anne

On 21 November 2014 14:55, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:

> A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited as
> a "radical feminist" though :)
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain <nethahussain@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Dear all,
>>
>>  I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about "Communicating
>> on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word
>> cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages" on meta wiki. The link to the
>> research page is here:
>>
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
>>
>> Regards
>> Netha
>>
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> From: Laura Hale <laura@fanhistory.com>
>> Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM
>> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female
>> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
>> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>
>>
>> Hey,
>>
>> I posted some new research to meta at
>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
>> .  It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive
>> analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages.
>> Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>> Laura Hale
>>
>> --
>> twitter: purplepopple
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Netha Hussain
>> Student of Medicine and Surgery
>> Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode
>> Blogs :
>> *nethahussain.blogspot.com
>> <http://nethahussain.blogspot.com>swethaambari.wordpress.com
>> <http://swethaambari.wordpress.com>*
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20141121/8b66b460/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 15:37:47 -0500
From: Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net>
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
        <gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: [Gendergap] Mention of Wikipedia data base in PBS article
Message-ID: <546FA29B.30206@verizon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; Format="flowed"

Mostly technical article. For those interested in this topic:
http://www.pbs.org/idealab/2014/11/how-to-ethically-and-responsibly-identify-gender-in-large-datasets/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20141121/f50e49dd/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 12:59:36 -0800
From: Kevin Gorman <kgorman@gmail.com>
To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
        participation   of women within Wikimedia projects."
        <gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while
        female
Message-ID:
        <CAJJA524zWC0=+44xUEE51N1YDYe0nKUgJNV51GNyNyu4P7rZLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Honestly, I don't see a giant problem with identifying the person in
question by name (and also find the research rather interesting.)  Eric
hasn't indicated that he regrets using the term, and has pretty robustly
defended using it (going as far back as at least 2012:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eric_Corbett/Statement - and he is very
easily linked via Google to his statements and general use of the word.
Realistically any research posted on meta will be primarily consumed by
Wikimedians, and the current GGTF arb case is quite high profile.  Although
it's not incredibly common to name people in research without their
explicit consent, it's quite common in journalism - I've had full comments
of mine quoted by name in prominent media outlets going back years, with me
often only finding out after someone pointed them out to me (and happening
way before I did any voluntary media outreach.)

-----
Kevin Gorman

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:

> I also find it very interesting.
>
> I have, however, asked Laura to redact the identifying information of one
> of the editors whose actions are incorporated into this research. Research
> rarely includes publishing identifying information about specific
> individuals, particularly without the direct permission of those
> individuals.  Regardless of what any of us think of the specific editor who
> is named, it behooves us all to act as we would expect to be treated - and
> I'd be pretty ticked if someone published research that included examples
> that identified me by name.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 21 November 2014 14:55, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>
>> A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited as
>> a "radical feminist" though :)
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain <nethahussain@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Dear all,
>>>
>>>  I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about "Communicating
>>> on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use of the word
>>> cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages" on meta wiki. The link to the
>>> research page is here:
>>>
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
>>>
>>> Regards
>>> Netha
>>>
>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>> From: Laura Hale <laura@fanhistory.com>
>>> Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM
>>> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female
>>> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
>>> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>
>>>
>>> Hey,
>>>
>>> I posted some new research to meta at
>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
>>> .  It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive
>>> analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages.
>>> Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list.
>>>
>>> Sincerely,
>>> Laura Hale
>>>
>>> --
>>> twitter: purplepopple
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Netha Hussain
>>> Student of Medicine and Surgery
>>> Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode
>>> Blogs :
>>> *nethahussain.blogspot.com
>>> <http://nethahussain.blogspot.com>swethaambari.wordpress.com
>>> <http://swethaambari.wordpress.com>*
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20141121/1b9852d6/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:27:50 -0500
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
        participation   of women within Wikimedia projects."
        <gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while
        female
Message-ID:
        <CAPXs8yT3Gjnv4uY4gtcbibKWG+kRh4URiS+JC3fwq-DBKGJh_g@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Well, then, that speaks more to the quality of the research if an entire
section is devoted to slagging a specific editor, and what you're
suggesting is that the research really should be interpreted as "we have
this one guy who keeps using this word, plus a rare occasional other editor
who uses it, and we're going to group all obscenities together and use it
to slag off the guy we're ticked off with".

This isn't claimed to be journalism, it's claimed to be research, and it
needs to be held to a higher standard.  The more I'm reading this, the more
I'm finding it problematic.

Risker/Anne

On 21 November 2014 15:59, Kevin Gorman <kgorman@gmail.com> wrote:

> Honestly, I don't see a giant problem with identifying the person in
> question by name (and also find the research rather interesting.)  Eric
> hasn't indicated that he regrets using the term, and has pretty robustly
> defended using it (going as far back as at least 2012:
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eric_Corbett/Statement - and he is
> very easily linked via Google to his statements and general use of the
> word.  Realistically any research posted on meta will be primarily consumed
> by Wikimedians, and the current GGTF arb case is quite high profile.
> Although it's not incredibly common to name people in research without
> their explicit consent, it's quite common in journalism - I've had full
> comments of mine quoted by name in prominent media outlets going back
> years, with me often only finding out after someone pointed them out to me
> (and happening way before I did any voluntary media outreach.)
>
> -----
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I also find it very interesting.
>>
>> I have, however, asked Laura to redact the identifying information of one
>> of the editors whose actions are incorporated into this research. Research
>> rarely includes publishing identifying information about specific
>> individuals, particularly without the direct permission of those
>> individuals.  Regardless of what any of us think of the specific editor who
>> is named, it behooves us all to act as we would expect to be treated - and
>> I'd be pretty ticked if someone published research that included examples
>> that identified me by name.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> On 21 November 2014 14:55, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>
>>> A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited
>>> as a "radical feminist" though :)
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain <nethahussain@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dear all,
>>>>
>>>>  I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about
>>>> "Communicating on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use
>>>> of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages" on meta wiki. The
>>>> link to the research page is here:
>>>>
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>> Netha
>>>>
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>> From: Laura Hale <laura@fanhistory.com>
>>>> Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM
>>>> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female
>>>> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
>>>> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hey,
>>>>
>>>> I posted some new research to meta at
>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
>>>> .  It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive
>>>> analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages.
>>>> Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list.
>>>>
>>>> Sincerely,
>>>> Laura Hale
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> twitter: purplepopple
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Netha Hussain
>>>> Student of Medicine and Surgery
>>>> Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode
>>>> Blogs :
>>>> *nethahussain.blogspot.com
>>>> <http://nethahussain.blogspot.com>swethaambari.wordpress.com
>>>> <http://swethaambari.wordpress.com>*
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20141121/9e363deb/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 7
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 13:41:07 -0800
From: Kevin Gorman <kgorman@gmail.com>
To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
        participation   of women within Wikimedia projects."
        <gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: Laura Hale <laura@fanhistory.com>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while
        female
Message-ID:
        <CAJJA524SMFrCGCg-XcbmcHyT=TELwkEMvo3ZpFE=7v2KXARDVA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

I don't think it's at all fair to characterize the section as an attempt to
rail on Eric.  He just happens to have been at the center of the most
recent high profile controversy about the word - which means that quoting
recent defenses of the use of the word as an insult will naturally mean
mostly quoting defenses of him.  I've gone ahead and CC'ed Laura on this
thread, since she's not on gendergap-l.

----
Kevin Gorman

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:

> Well, then, that speaks more to the quality of the research if an entire
> section is devoted to slagging a specific editor, and what you're
> suggesting is that the research really should be interpreted as "we have
> this one guy who keeps using this word, plus a rare occasional other editor
> who uses it, and we're going to group all obscenities together and use it
> to slag off the guy we're ticked off with".
>
> This isn't claimed to be journalism, it's claimed to be research, and it
> needs to be held to a higher standard.  The more I'm reading this, the more
> I'm finding it problematic.
>
> Risker/Anne
>
> On 21 November 2014 15:59, Kevin Gorman <kgorman@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Honestly, I don't see a giant problem with identifying the person in
>> question by name (and also find the research rather interesting.)  Eric
>> hasn't indicated that he regrets using the term, and has pretty robustly
>> defended using it (going as far back as at least 2012:
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eric_Corbett/Statement - and he is
>> very easily linked via Google to his statements and general use of the
>> word.  Realistically any research posted on meta will be primarily consumed
>> by Wikimedians, and the current GGTF arb case is quite high profile.
>> Although it's not incredibly common to name people in research without
>> their explicit consent, it's quite common in journalism - I've had full
>> comments of mine quoted by name in prominent media outlets going back
>> years, with me often only finding out after someone pointed them out to me
>> (and happening way before I did any voluntary media outreach.)
>>
>> -----
>> Kevin Gorman
>>
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I also find it very interesting.
>>>
>>> I have, however, asked Laura to redact the identifying information of
>>> one of the editors whose actions are incorporated into this
>>> research. Research rarely includes publishing identifying information about
>>> specific individuals, particularly without the direct permission of those
>>> individuals.  Regardless of what any of us think of the specific editor who
>>> is named, it behooves us all to act as we would expect to be treated - and
>>> I'd be pretty ticked if someone published research that included examples
>>> that identified me by name.
>>>
>>> Risker/Anne
>>>
>>> On 21 November 2014 14:55, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited
>>>> as a "radical feminist" though :)
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain <nethahussain@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>
>>>>>  I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about
>>>>> "Communicating on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use
>>>>> of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages" on meta wiki. The
>>>>> link to the research page is here:
>>>>>
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards
>>>>> Netha
>>>>>
>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>> From: Laura Hale <laura@fanhistory.com>
>>>>> Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM
>>>>> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female
>>>>> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
>>>>> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>
>>>>> I posted some new research to meta at
>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
>>>>> .  It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive
>>>>> analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages.
>>>>> Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>> Laura Hale
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> twitter: purplepopple
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Netha Hussain
>>>>> Student of Medicine and Surgery
>>>>> Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode
>>>>> Blogs :
>>>>> *nethahussain.blogspot.com
>>>>> <http://nethahussain.blogspot.com>swethaambari.wordpress.com
>>>>> <http://swethaambari.wordpress.com>*
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20141121/60a8cacf/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 8
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 16:49:59 -0500
From: Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com>
To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the
        participation   of women within Wikimedia projects."
        <gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while
        female
Message-ID:
        <CAPXs8yRcUF-g1RbgqiqY=eC8z4Q4nQHqBaAxf7s0fugqRNvt=A@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Fair enough.  I was aware that Laura isn't on this list so I have been
posting on Meta, which to me is the most appropriate place to critique the
study.

Frankly, most of it has little to do with "editing while female" since much
of the scatological language being referred to is gender neutral.

Risker/Anne

On 21 November 2014 16:41, Kevin Gorman <kgorman@gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't think it's at all fair to characterize the section as an attempt
> to rail on Eric.  He just happens to have been at the center of the most
> recent high profile controversy about the word - which means that quoting
> recent defenses of the use of the word as an insult will naturally mean
> mostly quoting defenses of him.  I've gone ahead and CC'ed Laura on this
> thread, since she's not on gendergap-l.
>
> ----
> Kevin Gorman
>
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 1:27 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Well, then, that speaks more to the quality of the research if an entire
>> section is devoted to slagging a specific editor, and what you're
>> suggesting is that the research really should be interpreted as "we have
>> this one guy who keeps using this word, plus a rare occasional other editor
>> who uses it, and we're going to group all obscenities together and use it
>> to slag off the guy we're ticked off with".
>>
>> This isn't claimed to be journalism, it's claimed to be research, and it
>> needs to be held to a higher standard.  The more I'm reading this, the more
>> I'm finding it problematic.
>>
>> Risker/Anne
>>
>> On 21 November 2014 15:59, Kevin Gorman <kgorman@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Honestly, I don't see a giant problem with identifying the person in
>>> question by name (and also find the research rather interesting.)  Eric
>>> hasn't indicated that he regrets using the term, and has pretty robustly
>>> defended using it (going as far back as at least 2012:
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Eric_Corbett/Statement - and he is
>>> very easily linked via Google to his statements and general use of the
>>> word.  Realistically any research posted on meta will be primarily consumed
>>> by Wikimedians, and the current GGTF arb case is quite high profile.
>>> Although it's not incredibly common to name people in research without
>>> their explicit consent, it's quite common in journalism - I've had full
>>> comments of mine quoted by name in prominent media outlets going back
>>> years, with me often only finding out after someone pointed them out to me
>>> (and happening way before I did any voluntary media outreach.)
>>>
>>> -----
>>> Kevin Gorman
>>>
>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 12:33 PM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I also find it very interesting.
>>>>
>>>> I have, however, asked Laura to redact the identifying information of
>>>> one of the editors whose actions are incorporated into this
>>>> research. Research rarely includes publishing identifying information about
>>>> specific individuals, particularly without the direct permission of those
>>>> individuals.  Regardless of what any of us think of the specific editor who
>>>> is named, it behooves us all to act as we would expect to be treated - and
>>>> I'd be pretty ticked if someone published research that included examples
>>>> that identified me by name.
>>>>
>>>> Risker/Anne
>>>>
>>>> On 21 November 2014 14:55, Ryan Kaldari <rkaldari@wikimedia.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> A very interesting study, and rather depressing. I love that I'm cited
>>>>> as a "radical feminist" though :)
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 9:43 AM, Netha Hussain <nethahussain@gmail.com
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  I found an interesting research done by Laura Hale about
>>>>>> "Communicating on Wikipedia while female : A discursive analysis of the use
>>>>>> of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages" on meta wiki. The
>>>>>> link to the research page is here:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>> Netha
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>>>>> From: Laura Hale <laura@fanhistory.com>
>>>>>> Date: Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 9:57 PM
>>>>>> Subject: [Wiki-research-l] Communicating on Wikipedia while female
>>>>>> To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities <
>>>>>> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Hey,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I posted some new research to meta at
>>>>>> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Communicating_on_Wikipedia_while_female
>>>>>> .  It is titled: Communicating on Wikipedia while female A discursive
>>>>>> analysis of the use of the word cunt on English Wikipedia user talk pages.
>>>>>> Thought it might be of some interest to people on this list.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sincerely,
>>>>>> Laura Hale
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> twitter: purplepopple
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Wiki-research-l mailing list
>>>>>> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Netha Hussain
>>>>>> Student of Medicine and Surgery
>>>>>> Govt. Medical College, Kozhikode
>>>>>> Blogs :
>>>>>> *nethahussain.blogspot.com
>>>>>> <http://nethahussain.blogspot.com>swethaambari.wordpress.com
>>>>>> <http://swethaambari.wordpress.com>*
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>>>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Gendergap mailing list
>>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Gendergap mailing list
>> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20141121/c1c81079/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

Message: 9
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 14:35:09 -0800
From: Kevin Gorman <kgorman@gmail.com>
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
        <gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] [Research] Communicating on Wikipedia while
        female
Message-ID:
        <CAJJA525-8d9VkBZfKauH7PjBebcSHruPwL80=t_hQ_7gwwL7ww@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Hi all -

I can't tell if Romana's recent message was accidentally allowed to go out
to the whole list or not; apologies if it was, I will be removing him from
the list momentarily.

Best,
Kevin Gorman
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20141121/6cd5fad6/attachment-0001.html>

------------------------------

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


End of Gendergap Digest, Vol 46, Issue 12
*****************************************