Yeah, I agree with John, those sorts of question becomes easier to answer when there's more immediate information available (even if the information isn't perfect or complete).

In addition, I can imagine that exploring the category and looking at user pages might inspire the formulation of more detailed questions.

As an analogy, today I was reading a biography of political analyst Nate Silver, famous for being the first to call the 2008 U.S. presidential election. One of his earlier claims to fame, as a baseball statistician, was extending the work of Bill James, a famous baseball statistician. He looked for patterns in pitching performance that took into account physical characteristics -- e.g., height and weight.

I would guess that Silver's inspiration to start that project originated with the greater accessibility of data in his era (the 2000s) than James' era (the 1980s).

In other words: if you remove obstacles, surprising things can happen.

In one case, you can end up with a huge and fascinating encyclopedia.
Perhaps in another, you can end up with useful research about gender and Wikipedia.

Removing barriers isn't a measurable benefit in itself, but it can support the emergence of things that are beneficial.


On Sep 24, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:

Well, I am a GED graduate on disability, if that helps.


On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:01 PM, John Vandenberg <> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Emily Monroe <> wrote:
> So, what are the questions?

Why do women start?  Why do women quit?  Is it different from reasons men quit?

Is there a sector where outreach has a higher conversion rate into
Wikipedian Women?

Is there an age bracket where outreach has a higher conversion rate
into Wikipedian Women?

(e.g.)  I suspect that our women typically come from glam & education,
whereas our men typically come from IT & law.

John Vandenberg

Gendergap mailing list

Gendergap mailing list

Pete Forsyth
503-383-9454 mobile