For the record: the percentage of female editors on the Dutch Wikipedia is only 6%. In the Netherlands, edit-a-thons seem to be useless in terms of recruitment vehicles and many long-term Wikipedians seem to have a long-tail interest that they tend to spend most of their time editing.
The "eternal limbo of rejection" at the articles for creation queues is thankfully not a problem anywhere except the English Wikipedia. I don't think any other Wikipedia has anything like AfC, and I am continually surprised to see it hasn't been stopped yet on the English Wikipedia, where I believe it does way more harm than good.
The Dutch Wikipedia does suffer from an overwhelmingly confusing set of policies that only seem to make sense to a tiny committee of editors that have been on board since about 2005. No one has ever felt that anything more is necessary to explain them than the policy pages themselves, which are a confusing mess of contradictions.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Tim Davenport shoehutch@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to Kerry Raymond's post...
QUANTIFICATION
If "all the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10%" but there are anecdotes of a significant undercount from Teahouse volunteers and such and if female participation at Wikimania approaches one-third, would that not seem to fortify my point that there is a need for reexamination of the magnitude of the gender gap? What is the exact magnitude of the female undercount (or the male overcount)?
This does not even bring up the matter of dynamics — is the gender disparity changing over time, and if so, which direction is it moving?
There is only one way to find this out: study, study, study, survey, survey, survey...
That WMF has its own editor gender data from 2012 that it is not releasing, as has been intimated, is annoying. Still: why is the GGTF waiting for San Francisco at all? Why is quantification and surveying not a vital part of the task force's mission?
That there is an editorial gender gap is beyond dispute. But how big is it really and how is it changing over time?
PROACTIVE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
So if edit-a-thons don't work, as you indicate, why is the WMF still spending money on them? Is it mere symbolism?
I have noted from working with a college class at WP that short-term class assignments don't seem to create long-term Wikipedians. Students being students, they slam out the minimum required right before deadline and move along with their lives. I don't know what does create long-term content people, other than a passion about SOMETHING and a desire to share the information. Vandal fighters and quality control people may have a different motivation.
Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that there is NOTHING that can be done proactively to pick the needles out of the haystack — that it is impossible for any bureaucratic entity to identify and activate the small fraction of 1% of people that will eventually become long-term Wikipedia volunteers.
This would mean that the "needles" are going to self-identify by registering at WP and beginning work under their own volition. Therefore, logically, primary attention should be focused on identifying and cultivating "new editors" every day, nurturing the newbies as they start to navigate the technical and cultural learning curves. In which case, Ms. Stierch's "Teahouse" concept is 100% right on the money.
And that's where the gender gap can be addressed, by making sure that every effort is made to teach and acclimate female newcomers in particular.
As for edit-a-thons and outreach recruiting, I personally believe that any recruitment that is not focused on teachers and academics will probably not produce lasting results. I'm also pretty well convinced that long term Wikipedians are made one at a time.
Tim Davenport "Carrite" on WP Corvallis, OR
=========
Kerry Raymond wrote:
A. All the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10% plus or minus a few percent. Of course, it is possible that in all of the studies the women are choosing not to self-identify. It is an inherent difficulty in any study if people choose to not reveal information. But we know women make up large proportions of social media users, so if women’s participation in Wikipedia is actually higher than studies show due to reluctance to self-identify, it begs the question of why they are so unwilling to self-identify in the content of Wikipedia but not in other contexts. Either way, it points to some problem. The last Wikimania recently released data that does show a higher level of female participation, about 1 in 3, I think. It would be interesting to see how the male/female numbers break down across the various types of attendees, e.g. WMF staff, Chapter members, event organisers, etc. My suspicion is that women are in higher proportion among staffers, chapters, etc and this skews the Wikimania participation. I don’t know how scholarships are awarded and whether women are at any advantage in that process.
B. A very interesting research paperhttp://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf shows that women are less likely to survive the newbie stage than men. But, perhaps contrary to what many expected, their data does not suggest that women are more easily discouraged by being reverted (they show men and women’s survival rates in the face of reversion are similar) but that more women’s edits are reverted than men’s edits and this is the cause of higher attrition among women. This has caused me to wonder if women as newbies are more attracted to articles where the risk of reversion is higher perhaps because there are more policies to be considered (e.g. biographies of living people, noting that women are predominantly the purchasers of “celebrity” magazines which deal mostly in content related to living people). The paper does show that men and women edit in different areas (men are more likely to edit in geography and science for example) but the analysis is too high level to answer my question. The other inherent limitation in any study of newbies that there is nothing in the initial signup to Wikipedia that asks you about your gender (even optionally) so very few newbies are self-identifying as either male or female at that time. So, it’s actually very hard to study the non-surviving female newbies because you can’t find them. This often means our study of the experiences of newbies is based heavily on those who are still around later to be studied or surveyed which introduces survivor bias into the study. So this may be a consideration in relation to the findings of this paper. Interview studies keep pointing to women not liking the abrasive environment of Wikipedia. Civility is a part of that issue. Although I think it’s not so much about the use of specific words, but rather a general culture of aggression. The people who use the swear words are simply much easier to spot and hold up as examples of the broader problem than those who engage in equally aggressive behaviour but do so citing [[WP:Policy]] and use the undo-button.
C. In relation to pro-active recruitment, I do a lot of that here in Australia, edit training and edit-a-thons. While some of the edit-a-thons have targeted women participants and are therefore predominantly women, edit training events are generally not so targeted and attract both women and men. From all of that I believe that women are not inherently disinterested in contributing to Wikipedia. However, these events do not seem to create ongoing editors (whether female or male) and this experience is not unique. A recent survey by the foundation found that this is the case all over the world. Generally, the one-event approach to edit training isn’t sufficient. Greater success seems to come from regular events usually in a university/college setting, but regular events are a challenge to resource with volunteers (we have other things that have to be done in our lives). Interestingly, most of the people who currently attend our sessions are middle aged and older. Many struggle with the markup; I hope the visual editor will address some of that problem. So I think we need to look at diversity in terms of age as well as gender. But I don’t think outreach is really the answer because it cannot be done at the necessary scale. It’s not that we need to have a team of mentors, we need everyone to be willing to help one another.
D. One thing I learn from our outreach is that many of the newbies (male and female) have unpleasant experiences even during the outreach events as well as soon afterwards. Their edits are reverted (for what seems to me to be no justifiable reason), new articles being speedily deleted or splashed with messages about policies they don’t know about and don’t comprehend, or left in an eternal limbo of rejection in Article for Creation. These folks are all “good faith” and they are all newcomers but the policies of “assume good faith” and “don’t bite the newbies” are completely ignored. We have many editors who are very aggressive. I have no idea if they are just angry with the world as a whole, or actually enjoy bullying the newbies. While obviously there are benefits to a culture of mentoring, even when I am in hand-holding edit-training mode (about as mentoring as it gets and I provide my contact details off-wiki as well as on-wiki for any follow-up), it’s difficult for me to justify to them why the newbie’s edits are being undone because the edits simply aren’t that bad. The situation makes me very angry. It is not as if it is the same small pool of editors creating these problems where maybe one could try to take action against them. It seems that we have such a huge pool of aggressive editors that our newbies will randomly attract the attention of one of them. (Or it may be that some bullying personalities are actively on the lookout for victims and newbies are a soft target).
So, all in all, I think if we need to go back to first principles “the encyclopaedia anyone can edit” and see that the aggressive nature of the community is working against this intention and seek to curb that aggression. I think curbing the aggression would result in more editors both male and female. So in that light, I would have to say that I find the ArbCom decision distressing as it appears to acknowledge and reinforce that the aggressive culture is both dominant and should continue to be so.
Kerry
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap