On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Amy Roth aroth@wikimedia.org wrote:
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Women and Wikipedia by Barbara Fisher Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:32:57 -0500 From: Sarah Stierch sarah@sarahstierch.com sarah@sarahstierch.com Reply-To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects gendergap@lists.wikimedia.orggendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
Yes, some women have chosen not to make contributions for various reasons or lack of interest, we all know that. But, I also won't fall for the concept that it's "our fault" (as a woman). I also think it's funny that people really do believe women don't have interest in "the facts."
Surprises me when female involvement in liberal arts studies are growing, for example, check out museum industry - an industry that is dominated by women. The majority of history classes I take are now full of women, and women's involvement in the sciences continues to grow as well. Again, it really surprises me that people think women aren't in it for the facts.
But, perhaps the fact that I don't read studies on that stuff says something. :)
I'd really like to start branching out into the internet and offline communities to see what womens thoughts are. I think we should seriously consider interviews or a more experience oriented research study about those who identify as females and what their experiences are - why and why they don't "do" Wikipedia. I think it'd shed a lot more light than numbers and non-sourced quotes. I will gladly assist in forming a research team for this.
Feminist "bulldust." Charming!
On 2/4/2011 4:19 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
On Friday, February 04, 2011, Steven Walling wrote:
Joseph Reagle's op-ed explains this argument further I think: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikip...
I think that argument is often implicit, though, I haven't heard it expressed explicitly by any Wikipedians. *But* you can find plenty of examples of this argument explicitly in response to the NYT's article itself.
For example, on the rather huge set of comments on a "anti-genderist" site:
It makes me happy to know that men are dominating the internet and women have absolutely no excuses. What are they going to do? Silence men to ensure equal representation?
Or elsewhere:
The NYT article below sees everything but the obvious in the fact that few women contribute to Wikipedia: That men are more interested in facts and women more interested in socio-emotional relationships. Men and women are the same, you see: Feminist bulldust. The fact that Wikpedia is voluntary and open to all DEMONSTRATES that men and women have inherently different interests. There is no oppressive "patriarchy" refusing to hire them
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
/
-- Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
I second Sarah's proposal to research why women don't contribute to Wikipedia. I have some ideas as to how we can do this using social media to branch out and evaluating email threads to look for repetitive themes. Because the opposite of the negative does not necessarily equal the positive, it is also important to look at the converse of that question, so we ask: What makes women contribute to Wikipedia?
I have a second thought to chime in here. We have strong evidence to believe that the limited diversity of WP editors limits the content of Wikipedia and we know that new articles are not being created at the rate they were 3-4 years ago. Is it possible that the limited content has an effect on the editors who participate? For example, suppose a potential woman editor wants to work on an article about Charlotte Ray, the first black woman lawyer. But there is not even a stub for Charlotte, so our editor tries to create the article, but it is immediately tagged for deletion for notability reasons. Having heard from many new editors, it is incredibly common that the initial contact with Wikipedia is that their article is deleted. I'm proposing that existing content is limited by the ideas of what the majority of the current community believes is notable, and it is difficult for new editors to earn the reputation within Wikipedia to influence this. So in effect the current content is limiting what new editors can contribute, and I suspect this is a major stumbling block for new women editors
-Amy
--I second Sarah's proposal to research why women don't contribute to Wikipedia. I have some ideas as to how we can do this using social media to branch out and evaluating email threads to look for repetitive themes. Because the opposite of the negative does not necessarily equal the positive, it is also important to look at the converse of that question, so we ask: What makes women contribute to Wikipedia?
Yeah, we really need a Task Force for this. We can utilize online survey systems, analysis, and I do like your idea of using social media as well. Give people a platform, they'll give you their opinions :)
I have a second thought to chime in here. We have strong evidence to believe that the limited diversity of WP editors limits the content of Wikipedia and we know that new articles are not being created at the rate they were 3-4 years ago. Is it possible that the limited content has an effect on the editors who participate? For example, suppose a potential woman editor wants to work on an article about Charlotte Ray, the first black woman lawyer. But there is not even a stub for Charlotte, so our editor tries to create the article, but it is immediately tagged for deletion for notability reasons. Having heard from many new editors, it is incredibly common that the initial contact with Wikipedia is that their article is deleted. I'm proposing that existing content is limited by the ideas of what the majority of the current community believes is notable, and it is difficult for new editors to earn the reputation within Wikipedia to influence this. So in effect the current content is limiting what new editors can contribute, and I suspect this is a major stumbling block for new women editors
I TOTALLY agree. If you search on Wikipedia and don't find the person or thing you're looking for, it's easy to just give up and move along. The "Stub" idea is one direction we have taken WikiProject: Public Art. I am a firm believer in "if you build it, they will come." And it happens - when I write an article or a stub about a public art sculpture people start to get involved, they claim it. I use Twitter and Facebook to post about my new articles, sharing them with neighborhoods and those involved in the community or museum or institution that might have some value put into the work of art - and it starts flying. Viewership goes up, people ask how they can contribute, and it encourages just what we want - expansion of information and sharing of knowledge.
I also notice that the project we did with the Indiana Statehouse, which we asked students in a museum collections management class to research, locate, and photograph every work of art in the Indiana Statehouse. The majority of those contributors were women, I'd love to find out how many will continue to contribute - especially now that they were recognized by the State for their work! (http://richardmccoy.tumblr.com/post/3093430185/today-at-the-indiana-state-ho...)
I don't see any reason why we can't start reaching out to the University Ambassadorship programs to perhaps invoke more female involvement. "Women Who Wiki" (and this can be extended of course to individuals who identify as women in any way)
If we have interest in expanding on "women's topics" we can work with classes that focus on women's studies, GLBT issues, history, etc - why not build a Task Force to focus entirely on broadening the WOMAN on Wikipedia? If everyone on this mailing list created one stub about a woman, a woman's issue, etc, we'd sure make an impact :)
Sarah
-Amy
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
At the risk of seeming like I'm doing shameless self-promotion, I would like to point out that the Wikipedia Campus Ambassador program is currently about 55% male and 45% female - a gender ratio that we are quite proud of.
I think this can also have very promising implications: Campus Ambassadors go into classrooms to teach students how to edit Wikipedia and also hold workshops/talks about Wikipedia for university staff and faculty; as such they're often seen as teacher/mentor figures, and it's likely very encouraging to the female students/staff/faculty to see that this role is taken on by fellow women. I have no data to back myself up on this particular point, but I think it's a reasonable hypothesis, and I would be very interested in helping out with research projects that explore this more.
Annie Lin Campus Team Coordinator (Public Policy Initiative) Wikimedia Foundation alin@wikimedia.org mailto:alin@wikimedia.org
On 2/4/11 2:38 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
I don't see any reason why we can't start reaching out to the University Ambassadorship programs to perhaps invoke more female involvement. "Women Who Wiki" (and this can be extended of course to individuals who identify as women in any way)
Annie - you should be "tooting your own horn" as my dear grandmother used to say! That is awesome! I pride myself on the fact that the Wikiproject I'm heavily involved in is mainly women too! That was one of the reasons I decided to start editing again, that encouragement and open minded "not just a boys club" mentality.
I think this is a great place to start and spread our wings to see what other groups to focus on.
I would love to know what the stats are in regards to how many students continue to edit after their class or training, male, female, etc.
Sarah
On 2/4/2011 5:54 PM, Annie L. Lin wrote:
At the risk of seeming like I'm doing shameless self-promotion, I would like to point out that the Wikipedia Campus Ambassador program is currently about 55% male and 45% female - a gender ratio that we are quite proud of.
I think this can also have very promising implications: Campus Ambassadors go into classrooms to teach students how to edit Wikipedia and also hold workshops/talks about Wikipedia for university staff and faculty; as such they're often seen as teacher/mentor figures, and it's likely very encouraging to the female students/staff/faculty to see that this role is taken on by fellow women. I have no data to back myself up on this particular point, but I think it's a reasonable hypothesis, and I would be very interested in helping out with research projects that explore this more.
Annie Lin Campus Team Coordinator (Public Policy Initiative) Wikimedia Foundation alin@wikimedia.org mailto:alin@wikimedia.org
On 2/4/11 2:38 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
I don't see any reason why we can't start reaching out to the University Ambassadorship programs to perhaps invoke more female involvement. "Women Who Wiki" (and this can be extended of course to individuals who identify as women in any way)
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah@sarahstierch.comwrote:
--
I second Sarah's proposal to research why women don't contribute to Wikipedia. I have some ideas as to how we can do this using social media to branch out and evaluating email threads to look for repetitive themes. Because the opposite of the negative does not necessarily equal the positive, it is also important to look at the converse of that question, so we ask: What makes women contribute to Wikipedia?
Yeah, we really need a Task Force for this. We can utilize online survey systems, analysis, and I do like your idea of using social media as well. Give people a platform, they'll give you their opinions :)
I have a second thought to chime in here. We have strong evidence to believe that the limited diversity of WP editors limits the content of Wikipedia and we know that new articles are not being created at the rate they were 3-4 years ago. Is it possible that the limited content has an effect on the editors who participate? For example, suppose a potential woman editor wants to work on an article about Charlotte Ray, the first black woman lawyer. But there is not even a stub for Charlotte, so our editor tries to create the article, but it is immediately tagged for deletion for notability reasons. Having heard from many new editors, it is incredibly common that the initial contact with Wikipedia is that their article is deleted. I'm proposing that existing content is limited by the ideas of what the majority of the current community believes is notable, and it is difficult for new editors to earn the reputation within Wikipedia to influence this. So in effect the current content is limiting what new editors can contribute, and I suspect this is a major stumbling block for new women editors
I TOTALLY agree. If you search on Wikipedia and don't find the person or thing you're looking for, it's easy to just give up and move along. The "Stub" idea is one direction we have taken WikiProject: Public Art. I am a firm believer in "if you build it, they will come." And it happens - when I write an article or a stub about a public art sculpture people start to get involved, they claim it. I use Twitter and Facebook to post about my new articles, sharing them with neighborhoods and those involved in the community or museum or institution that might have some value put into the work of art - and it starts flying. Viewership goes up, people ask how they can contribute, and it encourages just what we want - expansion of information and sharing of knowledge.
I also notice that the project we did with the Indiana Statehouse, which we asked students in a museum collections management class to research, locate, and photograph every work of art in the Indiana Statehouse. The majority of those contributors were women, I'd love to find out how many will continue to contribute - especially now that they were recognized by the State for their work! ( http://richardmccoy.tumblr.com/post/3093430185/today-at-the-indiana-state-ho... )
I don't see any reason why we can't start reaching out to the University Ambassadorship programs to perhaps invoke more female involvement. "Women Who Wiki" (and this can be extended of course to individuals who identify as women in any way)
If we have interest in expanding on "women's topics" we can work with classes that focus on women's studies, GLBT issues, history, etc - why not build a Task Force to focus entirely on broadening the WOMAN on Wikipedia? If everyone on this mailing list created one stub about a woman, a woman's issue, etc, we'd sure make an impact :)
I have a list of "first_United_States_female_state_legislators " stared in my user space. I would love to have this adopted by one or more other people who are interested in seeing have an article about each of these women.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FloNight/List_of_the_first_United_States_f...
We need to check to see if they already have an article and if so link to it. If not then we need to write a stub or a short article.
I spend time writing articles about interesting women because I think that we are not doing a good job with content about remarkable women. Durng March March 2010 Women's History Month (United State) I exclusively worked on articles about historically significant women. You can see my list on my user page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:FloNight
Maybe we could organize some editing initiatives around a month or day when outside organizations honor women. It would be great if we could collaborate with some of these outside groups if they are researching notable wormen. In the United States most states have a Women's Hall of Fame that has a list of interesting women from that state. It would be a good place to start.
Sydney
Sarah
-Amy
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Amy wrote:
For example, suppose a potential woman editor wants to work on an article about Charlotte Ray, the first black woman lawyer. But there is not even a stub for Charlotte, so our editor tries to create the article, but it is immediately tagged for deletion for notability reasons. Having heard from many new editors, it is incredibly common that the initial contact with Wikipedia is that their article is deleted. I'm proposing that existing content is limited by the ideas of what the majority of the current community believes is notable, and it is difficult for new editors to earn the reputation within Wikipedia to influence this. So in effect the current content is limiting what new editors can contribute, and I suspect this is a major stumbling block for new women editors
My comment:
I have noticed in occasionally reviewing people's speedy tagging incident to doing username patrol that it seems too many newpage patrollers, particularly those using Huggle or something like that, confuse "unreferenced" for "non-notable". I've had to de-speedy a couple of articles where the text did make an assertion which, if properly sourced, would demonstrate notability.
Daniel Case
Please see the Wikipedia article: Charlotte E. Ray
Fred
Amy wrote:
For example, suppose a potential woman editor wants to work on an article about Charlotte Ray, the first black woman lawyer. But there is not even a stub for Charlotte, so our editor tries to create the article, but it is immediately tagged for deletion for notability reasons. Having heard from many new editors, it is incredibly common that the initial contact with Wikipedia is that their article is deleted. I'm proposing that existing content is limited by the ideas of what the majority of the current community believes is notable, and it is difficult for new editors to earn the reputation within Wikipedia to influence this. So in effect the current content is limiting what new editors can contribute, and I suspect this is a major stumbling block for new women editors
My comment:
I have noticed in occasionally reviewing people's speedy tagging incident to doing username patrol that it seems too many newpage patrollers, particularly those using Huggle or something like that, confuse "unreferenced" for "non-notable". I've had to de-speedy a couple of articles where the text did make an assertion which, if properly sourced, would demonstrate notability.
Daniel Case _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Please see the Wikipedia article: Charlotte E. Ray
But I think she was just using that as an example of an article a hypothetical female editor might have been interested in starting at one point. Certainly there are other notable-woman articles that haven't been started or expanded yet where this could happen.
Daniel Case