On Thu, Jan 15, 2015 at 4:30 AM, Risker <risker.wp@gmail.com> wrote:
Well, to be perfectly honest...

Think back to that survey, if you can.  It was written entirely in-house, by people with no particular skill in survey development, no genuine experience in writing non-leading questions, etc; it was amongst the most unscientific studies I've participated in while wearing my Wikipedia hat. 



The "cult of the amateur", eh? 


 
It went on and on about chapters, which was a totally meaningless question for over 90% of editors; I remember that much because it ticked me off. 



I think you're thinking of the "satisfaction with WMF" section. There was a bit of a presentation on that part at Wikimania 2013. John Vandenberg put some slides up here:

https://www.facebook.com/johnmark.vandenberg/posts/10151659438254209


Notice the slide that says



---o0o---

Soon:

– Topline report and posts with further analysis soon on blog.wikimedia.org

– Anonymized dataset for your own analysis

---o0o---



These days, whenever someone from the Foundation promises to do something "soon", I think of the following:

http://www.thingsjamaicanslove.com/ramblings/soon_come_what_does_it_really_mean.html


 
There was some pretty good indication that it was enwiki-centric and what wasn't enwiki-centric was Wikipedia-centric.  I don't know that any result from that survey will mean much from a research point of view.  The fact that the WMF has never bothered to publish the data suggests to me that even they realised how flawed the data collection process was.



The first half of the survey was a straight repetition of the 2011 survey (so it shouldn't be any better or worse than that). 

The second half was satisfaction with WMF work. The presentation at Wikimania 2013 was only about the second half (satisfaction with WMF).

As for gender demographics, the Wikimania presentation mentioned none of the survey's own data. It only pointed out that Hill and Shaw had recently reanalysed the results from the 2008 UNU survey, and revised that survey's female participation estimate upwards (from 12.6% to 16.1%).

However, at that same Wikimania, Sue Gardner gave an interview to the South China Morning Post.[1] An excerpt:


---o0o---


Gardner, the organisation's highest-ranking woman, yesterday confirmed she will leave the foundation in December because she believes there is a bigger job at hand, protecting the freedom of the internet.

That stubborn gender gap, however, remains a disappointment.

"I didn't solve it. We didn't solve it. The Wikimedia Foundation didn't solve it. The solution won't come from the Wikimedia Foundation."

Instead, she said, it had to be solved by the community it served, with women stepping forward to take a more active role.

Gardner accepted the job in 2007 and had no idea of the gender imbalance in the Wikipedia world until a Wikiwomen gathering in Taipei later that year.

She was shocked to find there only 11 of the 400 participants were women, and only one was a parent. 


---o0o---


Given Sue's high-profile involvement in the gender gap effort, I can't imagine that she didn't ask for a heads-up on the 2012 survey data. It's tempting to assume that she, at least, had seen the gender stats from the 2012 survey, and found them disappointing. 


[1] http://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/article/1295872/wikipedia-fails-bridge-gender-gap


 
And for the record, I ticked that I didn't want to say my gender. 

Risker/Anne

On 14 January 2015 at 21:48, JJ Marr <jjmarr@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't really care about the results. It's obvious what they're going to be, and now it's a matter of principle. Where'd my money go? 3 years! The war of 1812 was shorter! Why is it taking so long?

On Jan 14, 2015 11:05 AM, "Neotarf" <neotarf@gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you so much for your continued followup on this. I saw the Signpost comment as well.  If the Foundation is to be serious about closing the gender gap, it needs to start with metrics.  For anyone who wants to see the 2011 survey, there are some links here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editors_Survey_November_2011#Results  I note the old survey does ask about age and education level, so maybe there will be some hard data for those who continue to suggest dumbing things down or making them cutesy in order to make WP palatable for women.

Regards,
Neotarf


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Andreas Kolbe <jayen466@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:16 AM
Subject: [Gendergap] Update on 2012 editor survey results
To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects <gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>


Tilman Bayer has, at long last, responded to inquiries about the as yet unreleased gender split in the 2012 editor survey:


Nearly two years ago, Tilman had said:

---o0o---

Beckie and I have been working on the data during the last few days, and we hope we can wrap this up soon. In any case, we still have the ambition of keeping the timespan between the conclusion of the survey and the publication of the first results shorter than in the preceding editors survey. Regards, Tbayer (WMF) (talk) 21:13, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

---o0o---

His recent posts to the talk page are his first contribution there since August 2013. He says,

---o0o---

[...] we plan to publish a blog post which alongside other results from the 2012 survey will contain a more solid analysis of the gender ratio changes, e.g. on a per-country basis [...]

---o0o---

Even so, we still do not have a schedule or date by when the results will be made available. Sarah (Slim) and I have asked him to provide one. I have also asked whether there are any plans for future editor surveys, and if not, why not.

Watch that space ...

Andreas

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap