Hi Claudia. There are good numbers for LGBT in real world populations, and the people doing the studies are all to aware of the problems with their numbers - there are journals dedicated to research in this discipline. i havent seen similar quality academic studies about LGBT within the wikimedia community - these studies tend to be very simplistic due to lack if understanding or inadequate funding, and/or riddled with bias without explanation.

On Jul 6, 2012 1:11 PM, <koltzenburg@w4w.net> wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
> I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap.

my impression is that there certainly are gender gaps in LGBTIQA* communities - if ever non-heterosexual
people are happy to be lumped together just because of not identifying non-heterosexual, that is ... -

irrespective of whether we define "gender" in two (female / male) or in many (like in LGBTIQA*, with *
including heterosexuals of whatever gender)

and also, yes, I also think that there is a widespread gender gap between non-heterosexuals and
heterosexuals, "widespread" meaning: in many cultures (and that bisexuals are the freest and hence could
act as the bridge-builders for such a gender gap in a very nice way, it seems to me)

> The point of the
[LGBT]
> list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation
> like gendergap is.

why is this not intended, Tom?
see also the following:

On Fri, 6 Jul 2012 11:35:21 +0700, John Vandenberg wrote
> I agree, mostly, but. . my understanding is that the surveys (ignoring the
> faults in them) indicate LGBT may actually be over-represented in wikimedia
> when compared to the distribution expected by real-world population
> studies; in both men and women. Im not saying this is bad, but that it
> does not appear that there is a LGBT systemic gap that needs a strategic
> approach to solving.

maybe there is another methodological issue here?
why would you want to ignore the faults in wikimedia surveys but not in outcomes of any study that
purports to "verify" (or whatever) "the distribution expected by real-world population studies"?

how can anyone who is doing "real-world population studies" expect to find out anything reliable about the
size of a community who members are still facing systematic social and political attempts at silencing (about
their way of life) by their adversaries of whatever inclination?

maybe, hence, it would be more realistic to compare non-real-world results to the wikimedia results?
hypothesis: "over-represented" would start with 51% LGBTIQA* but not below :-)

anyway, I am not sure I agree with Tom's list of differences between the [gendergap] and [LGBT] lists and
will come back to this later since I think it is more important to see what these two lists have in common :-)
so I like John's argument that we might learn from each other!

cheers
Claudia

On Mon, 2 Jul 2012 09:47:58 +0100, Tom Morris wrote
> On Monday, 2 July 2012 at 06:24, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
> > Hi Tom, hi @all
> >
> > > Wikimedia have decided to allow the list to be created
> >
> > since we are addressing not only one gender gap but, seemingly quite a few, including those that come
alonf
> > the lines of what has come to be called sexual orientarion, I have a question about the creation process
of
> > the new list. I recently heard elsewhere that
> >
> > it was difficult to bring WF to "allow" the list to be created in the frame of lists.wikimedia.org
(http://lists.wikimedia.org)?
> > how come?
>
> You can see the discussion that led to the creation of the mailing list here:
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37888
>
> I disagreed rather strongly with the suggestion made that two of the
> proposed list administrators (Varnent and Fae) would have a "POV"*, but
> agreed to be a list admin instead.
>
> Eventually, there was not really any "difficulty", just confusion and
> miscommunication. All's well that ends well.
>
> I'm not sure I agree that LGBT is another gender gap. The point of the
> list isn't that it's dealing with a clear need to increase participation
> like gendergap is. It's based on two things: dealing with problematic
> editor interaction issues if and when they occur and trying to increase
> outreach to LGBT communities and organisations sort of like GLAM:
> there are historical and cultural organisations Wikimedians can work with
> to counter systemic bias etc. (As with women's history, LGBT history is
> often written out of the literature, and thus out of Wikipedia.)
>
> There's obviously some overlap given that gender, gender identity and
> sexual orientation are all bound together, but I wouldn't otherwise want
> to draw comparisons with what gendergap is doing and what the LGBT list is
> doing.
>
> * To quote Lady Gaga: if I have a POV or a COI, I was born that way.
>
> --
> Tom Morris
> <http://tommorris.org/>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap


thanks & cheers,
Claudia
koltzenburg@w4w.net


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