On Mon, Dec 1, 2014 at 2:40 PM, Tim Davenport <shoehutch@gmail.com> wrote:

(1) Political organizing should happen off wiki, not on wiki. This is just as true for WikiProject Conservatism as it is for WikiProject Gender Gap Task Force. Wikipedia is not the place. Go for it, just not there.

It's not political organizing and the two projects you identify are fundamentally different. A conservatism wikiproject is aimed at ensuring complete coverage of topics related to political conservatism; its an encyclopedic, content project. The GGTF is a very different project, with content development as a goal but the primary objective is addressing the identified and well supported gender gap in the editing population. Developing a more diverse and representative body of editors is not a political goal.

(2) GGTF misfired by obsessively identifying with civility patrolling as its primary function. At a minimum, that is putting the cart before the horse. Going further: I would argue that it is an an absolutely misplaced predilection, that a very low-importance contributing factor to WP editor gender disparity has been elevated into The Main Reason without statistical evidence. It's a hot-button topic at WP and it was a fight poorly chosen.

Someone else will chime into citations but certainly it is commonly reported by users, and in the press, that the sometimes toxic cultural atmosphere on Wikipedia contributes to deterring female editors. With this conclusion in hand, it is completely reasonable for a task force trying to make the project more comfortable for women to address instances of sexist language and sex-related incivility.

(3) Here's what needs to happen:

A. Quantify and track the actual gender gap at WP over time. Anecdotally, female participation at events like Wikimania is significantly greater than the 1F:7M ratio that would be anticipated from the estimated ratio of registered editors. Does this mean that the differential is exaggerated due to an undercount or under-self-reporting of female editors? Why are there not annual estimates made and tracked by WMF or by GGTF itself?

The ability of any outside group to do mass surveys on Wikipedia or any Wikimedia project is limited, but the WMF has done several surveys which have included gender statistics. They have consistently shown a massive gender disparity; whether the ratio is 9% or 10% or 13%, it is far away from the gender split of the Internet as a whole or other Web 2.0 properties. The surveys may have problems, some may be old, there may be an issue with people who decline to identify. But regardless, and despite your repeated requests for an accurate count, there is and can be no question that a very large gender gap does exist.

C. Coordinate pro-active recruitment. Edit-a-thons, university outreach, etc. targeting new female participants. This is the main way that gender disparity will be overcome — one new editor at a time.

Edit-a-thons and university outreach have been done by chapters and the WMF, as well as other groups of users, for years. None have shown a sustained impact around developing new editors, and certainly none can scale enough to address the gender gap.

D. Targeted, organized mentoring. Watch the new editor pool and target female newcomers. Help them through the learning curve. Too often newcomers of both genders are left isolated; bring them into the community.

As above. It's nice that you extend the benefit of doubt to Eric Corbett (or Mr. Corbett, as you say), and presume to his credit that his use of some words is down to ignorance or provincialism. I only wish that you might extend the same benefit to those you label "disruptionists", or at least merely consider that they have been hounded and pressured by critics into the sort of frustration that might provoke outbursts by anyone.