A lot of work has been done on these pages and they are now better.  But a lot of the pages are still polluted with useless and irrelevant information.  It would be a better idea to start from a basis of zero female participation and then point out exceptions to that, rather than saying "there are zero women from the Cook Islands accredited with the Portugese Wikinews" or "There are no Albanian women who are admins on German Wikiversity".  Local editors then add information on anything that is surprising or unusual about female participation in their country.

I know I could add it myself but why would I want to when the initial information dump is so baffling?


On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Asaf Bartov <asaf.bartov@gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
I suspect people have been hesitant to remove the information because it's not clear why it was added in the first place; on the whole, Wikimedians are content collectors rather than content removers, unless they are very comfortable that the information being removed is of no significant value or is actively harmful.

Having a quick glance, I see comments like "no women were elected to Arbcom" for projects that don't have Arbcoms, and references to no women on projects that don't exist for that language group.

As the majority of the data was completed by Laura (thanks for all your research!), perhaps she could help the list to understand what the intention was in including some of this information.

Indeed.  

Has this been answered in a different thread or on a talk page somewhere?  I too am puzzled by the data in the "Perspectives" section, and I share Lodewijk's concern about drowning out interesting data points with a lot of meaningless ones.

    Asaf
--
Asaf Bartov <asaf.bartov@gmail.com>

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