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: 

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
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