Dear Colleagues,
About reduced figures on female contributors:
I’ve said this before, and I’ll say it again: females are busy being mothers and caregivers. Demographic factors may vary, but in-the-trenches scholarly research needs to be undertaken if an explanation to low contribution figures is seriously sought.
Women (and people of color) are likely to have fewer financial resources than men (i.e. innovative time on their hands at the keyboard). For single parents, it is worse yet (females who do not have a partner provisioning them); they just don’t have the time. Moreover, who wants to fight online intellectual/deletion battles and noob learning curves when there is: laundry to do, cooking and dishes, kids to take somewhere, diapers, homework, animals, gardens, transportation, and paying basic bills? Daycare support in the U.S. has evaporated and single-parent households have increased.
How many hours in her productive lifetime does a female spend changing diapers? Nursing (Some mothers do this for years)? Preparing food? Cleaning up after children- and without domestic help? Overseeing homework? Then, there’s more than one child, then 2, then maybe more, maybe many more. In some nations, women go directly from mothering to grandmothering. Modern teens don’t leave home; they cannot find jobs, so raising children, and the distractions that come with it, have extended out a few more years.
About Sue Gardener and challenges to increase female participation:
Sue has earnestly identified a problem, and is taking pot-shots for being the proverbial messenger. On gender balance, she is facing a task riddled with problems of a global scope. Organizational issues at Wikimedia, it is said, inhibit more meaningful change. It may be a bigger problem than Sue can take on, especially if she’s encouraged to accomplish increased gender balance, but is not given broad authority to do it. If this is relatively accurate, Sue’s mandate is only partial and superstructural “culture” change is unlikely.
Human Resources (HR) at Wikimedia, are a puzzling lot. The weirdest phone interview I’ve had, occurred with one of Wikimedia’s HR people. The person proceeded to tell me about what “rock stars” other job candidates were, and what exotic lands they hail from. As a social scientist, one senses a poorly developed ego, plus narcissistic impulses, which of course, cannot be satisfied. Serious scholarship skills, such as those (less faraway-eyed) who would dig in and get to the bottom of the gender question, get dimensionless play by youthful (?) Wikimedia-identified employees. If investigative scholarship has little dimension for HR staff, and foci are “cultural fit” and being a “rock star”, not to mention volunteership (volunteers-hip), something is lost in the group’s mission. Demi-monde-ism from the core, and its adherence, is worrisome.
Even job descriptions at Wikimedia have not historically targeted the obvious need for academic research scholarship, outreach, and sufficient demographic research to get at this gendered tip-of-the-iceberg, larger question; and it’s significance is not just for the U.S., not just for societies, but for humanity.
Look, Wikimedia is not alone in this debacle. The medical establishment is trying to figure out why females of ethnic groups make the (non-medical) decisions they do. I also find, given that I am a registered reviewer of federal grants, that California is not in the vanguard of dedicated social understanding on anthropological phenomena, though it would seem like a likely place for awareness to be cultivated.
Sue is at risk for being out of touch, as a non-parent, and possibly alienated with the stressful social discourse she finds herself in. But, Sue can see to it that scholars, who fight the good fight, and have the desire, and ability (as gender specialists, who’ve earned social science research cred) to help her struggle for infrastructural change, are invited, engaged, and paid to do so. Sue may have opened Pandora’s Box, but so far, she has faced this dilemma with courage and transparency. This is not dysfunctional; it is social frontier.
About use of terms to describe southerly nations:
One term used among analysts is: “emerging economies.” This tends to enjoy more use today than the term it replaced- now fallen from vogue- “third world countries.” Because of global impoverishment (by this term, I mean natural resource exhaustion), we are not referring solely to the tropics these days, and while the U.S. and other nations once thought of themselves as the “first world” vanguard, it seems obvious that the “second world” tier is repopulating, and open for reinterpretation, as well. The term “global south,” while geographically comprehensible, has geo-political problems, but it may depend on the argument or perspective you want to present.
About falling literacy among youth:
I concur, as a university lecturer; I have students who use “Texteze” in academic assignments. I find females are more likely to submit it. Young males are so busy in the gaming space, they are bored with focus in the academy; this includes sciences. Research indicates (high-tech countries’) boys are socializing better because of hoard/war games and the strategies necessary for victories there. Back to teen girls for a moment, they are also likely to draw hearts and cute figures on academic assignments. I receive emotive drawings on roughly 30% of girl’s papers, and 0% of boys. This in itself is worthy of study.
One reason I’ve heard, from local employers, for firing/not hiring youth, is compulsive texting on the job. Again, new studies indicate that youth with mobile devices become stressed if out of contact with peers for more than about 45 minutes. Colleges have the responsibility, along with high schools of graduating job-ready youth, and they are somehow losing the battle on this. Gender data on this would also be useful. Maybe someone on this list is looking at this, or knows scholars looking at gender in texting?
KS Rolph- Anthropologist
Palo Alto, California
Women (and people of color) are likely to have fewer financial resources than men (i.e. innovative time on their hands at the keyboard). For single parents, it is worse yet (females who do not have a partner provisioning them); they just dont have the time. Moreover, who wants to fight online intellectual/deletion battles and noob learning curves when there is: laundry to do, cooking and dishes, kids to take somewhere, diapers, homework, animals, gardens, transportation, and paying basic bills? Daycare support in the U.S. has evaporated and single-parent households have increased.
I've done lots of caregiving, for parents and brother in the last 20 years, and despite all the chores it does result in lots of free time at home. Which I was motivated to use learning computing, getting on the internet, etc. The alternative is often reading or watching TV with the people you're taking care of.
Much of the time I was also working. This was an attractive activity for me, getting information, playing games, participating in mailing lists, working on Wikipedia. My nearest neighbor was half a mile a way and I didn't like them. I was isolated by both geography and caregiving. I have no idea why more women don't also find it interesting.
Fred
Yes Fred, I agree that working on WP has the capacity to take your mind off the daily concerns and stresses - it's interesting, educational and productive and its incrementalism is perfect for those with caregiving responsibilities. The difficulty is getting started and also learning to use the technology. You need a serious amount of concentration and focus to get to some level of competence, which like most worthwhile endeavours, is possibly, if frustratingly, a good thing. As a relatively newbie female, who has years of experience in caregiving, I'd say becoming a Wikipedian is like learning to play the piano or speak French (both of which I have tried to do). Before you get to the rewarding part, you need to learn the skills. Then you can play and communicate.
Gillian
On 4 July 2011 08:49, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Women (and people of color) are likely to have fewer financial resources than men (i.e. innovative time on their hands at the keyboard). For single parents, it is worse yet (females who do not have a partner provisioning them); they just don’t have the time. Moreover, who wants to fight online intellectual/deletion battles and noob learning curves when there is: laundry to do, cooking and dishes, kids to take somewhere, diapers, homework, animals, gardens, transportation, and paying basic bills? Daycare support in the U.S. has evaporated and single-parent households have increased.
I've done lots of caregiving, for parents and brother in the last 20 years, and despite all the chores it does result in lots of free time at home. Which I was motivated to use learning computing, getting on the internet, etc. The alternative is often reading or watching TV with the people you're taking care of.
Much of the time I was also working. This was an attractive activity for me, getting information, playing games, participating in mailing lists, working on Wikipedia. My nearest neighbor was half a mile a way and I didn't like them. I was isolated by both geography and caregiving. I have no idea why more women don't also find it interesting.
Fred
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
If women don't edit Wikipedia because they don't have free time, why are there more women bloggers than men? Keeping a blog requires a lot more time and dedication than editing Wikipedia. Currently, however, 51% of blog posts are by women.[1] Women also spend more time using email and online chat than men.[2] There must be other factors at work besides a lack of free time.
1. http://www.sysomos.com/reports/bloggers/ 2. http://www.encognitive.com/files/Shyness%20and%20Locus%20of%20Control%20as%2...
Ryan Kaldari
On 7/3/11 6:45 PM, Gillian White wrote:
Yes Fred, I agree that working on WP has the capacity to take your mind off the daily concerns and stresses - it's interesting, educational and productive and its incrementalism is perfect for those with caregiving responsibilities. The difficulty is getting started and also learning to use the technology. You need a serious amount of concentration and focus to get to some level of competence, which like most worthwhile endeavours, is possibly, if frustratingly, a good thing. As a relatively newbie female, who has years of experience in caregiving, I'd say becoming a Wikipedian is like learning to play the piano or speak French (both of which I have tried to do). Before you get to the rewarding part, you need to learn the skills. Then you can play and communicate.
Gillian
On 4 July 2011 08:49, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net mailto:fredbaud@fairpoint.net> wrote:
> Women (and people of color) are likely > to have fewer financial resources than men (i.e. innovative time on their > hands at the keyboard). For single parents, it is worse yet (females who > do not have a partner > provisioning them); they just don’t have the time. Moreover, > who wants to fight online intellectual/deletion battles and noob learning > curves when > there is: laundry to do, cooking and dishes, kids to take somewhere, > diapers, > homework, animals, gardens, transportation, and paying basic bills? > Daycare support in the U.S. has > evaporated and single-parent households have increased. I've done lots of caregiving, for parents and brother in the last 20 years, and despite all the chores it does result in lots of free time at home. Which I was motivated to use learning computing, getting on the internet, etc. The alternative is often reading or watching TV with the people you're taking care of. Much of the time I was also working. This was an attractive activity for me, getting information, playing games, participating in mailing lists, working on Wikipedia. My nearest neighbor was half a mile a way and I didn't like them. I was isolated by both geography and caregiving. I have no idea why more women don't also find it interesting. Fred _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
I'm going to be brutally honest here, because I keep seeing the same surveys, opinions and theories over and over again...
I agree that the "I don't have enough free time," argument is tiring.
I think a lot of it boils down to mark-up being too high maintainence, attention (I admit, I get annoyed still sometimes when I am not credited for a job well done in the Wikiworld), motivation, and the lame social environment that sometimes goes with it.
I also think Wikipedia is rather "geeky" compared to the sexiness of blogging.
I'd love to see a survey where "Lack of free time" was not even on the options list.
I am single, I don't have kids, I am 30, getting my masters and I stopped editing in 2004 after assholes who had no interest in helping me through the Wikiworld drove me nuts. I started editing in 2006 due to a car crash that made me bedridden - it was a better option than World of Warcraft..
2 years ago Wikipedia was barely on my radar. Then some museum colleagues asked me to participate in a public art project - I was one of three women (and 1 man). Now, two years later people are paying my way to speak at their institutions about GLAMWIKI and my current residency is completely spearheaded by women, 3 who are editing. (Might sound braggy but I'm making a point)
I think we need to start thinking of "potential female editors" as not only housewives, or moms. Which seems to be constantly a theme. If the housewife mother isnt editing...who could be?
The more outreach that continues (i.e. Public policy) to get funded, or is practically grassroots (GLAM) can help bring more women who will MAKE time to contribute. Everyday I get an email (no joke) during my residency at the Smithsonian from someone, usually a woman, interested in WP.
The past year I have devoted my life to WP, advocacy and examining it in my thesis - And the majority of people I preach the gospel to are women.
Pardon my angst, bitchiness and such, but, there is a lot more too this...and I'm sorry I haven had time to contribute to this project like I had hoped - my Non-gender oriented WP work has taken priority..
Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
On Jul 7, 2011, at 6:47 PM, Ryan Kaldari rkaldari@wikimedia.org wrote:
If women don't edit Wikipedia because they don't have free time, why are there more women bloggers than men? Keeping a blog requires a lot more time and dedication than editing Wikipedia. Currently, however, 51% of blog posts are by women.[1] Women also spend more time using email and online chat than men.[2] There must be other factors at work besides a lack of free time.
- http://www.sysomos.com/reports/bloggers/
- http://www.encognitive.com/files/Shyness%20and%20Locus%20of%20Control%20as%2...
Ryan Kaldari
On 7/3/11 6:45 PM, Gillian White wrote:
Yes Fred, I agree that working on WP has the capacity to take your mind off the daily concerns and stresses - it's interesting, educational and productive and its incrementalism is perfect for those with caregiving responsibilities. The difficulty is getting started and also learning to use the technology. You need a serious amount of concentration and focus to get to some level of competence, which like most worthwhile endeavours, is possibly, if frustratingly, a good thing. As a relatively newbie female, who has years of experience in caregiving, I'd say becoming a Wikipedian is like learning to play the piano or speak French (both of which I have tried to do). Before you get to the rewarding part, you need to learn the skills. Then you can play and communicate.
Gillian
On 4 July 2011 08:49, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
Women (and people of color) are likely to have fewer financial resources than men (i.e. innovative time on their hands at the keyboard). For single parents, it is worse yet (females who do not have a partner provisioning them); they just don’t have the time. Moreover, who wants to fight online intellectual/deletion battles and noob learning curves when there is: laundry to do, cooking and dishes, kids to take somewhere, diapers, homework, animals, gardens, transportation, and paying basic bills? Daycare support in the U.S. has evaporated and single-parent households have increased.
I've done lots of caregiving, for parents and brother in the last 20 years, and despite all the chores it does result in lots of free time at home. Which I was motivated to use learning computing, getting on the internet, etc. The alternative is often reading or watching TV with the people you're taking care of.
Much of the time I was also working. This was an attractive activity for me, getting information, playing games, participating in mailing lists, working on Wikipedia. My nearest neighbor was half a mile a way and I didn't like them. I was isolated by both geography and caregiving. I have no idea why more women don't also find it interesting.
Fred
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
On 7/7/11 7:17 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
I think we need to start thinking of "potential female editors" as not only housewives, or moms. Which seems to be constantly a theme. If the housewife mother isnt editing...who could be?
The more outreach that continues (i.e. Public policy) to get funded, or is practically grassroots (GLAM) can help bring more women who will MAKE time to contribute. Everyday I get an email (no joke) during my residency at the Smithsonian from someone, usually a woman, interested in WP.
Yes! I can't emphasize this enough. The gender imbalance is symptomatic of the wider systemic bias on Wikipedia and lack of true diversity of interests and viewpoints. Though I am a male, as a non-techie working in the humanities and interested in things like libraries and non-American/European culture, I also sometimes feel like a sort of minority on Wikipedia. These are obviously related issues, because there is a real-world gender imbalance in fields like math and sciences in one direction, and, for example, in my field, library science, in the other.
I work with professional women every day whose careers are in the world of information. They are avid Twitterers, expert Flickrites, Facebook fiends, and Foursquare addicts. At my library science grad program, everyone knows how to use MediaWiki, as it is used internally for classes. And yet, for whatever reason, Wikipedia is just not part of their skill set. That is what needs to change. There is clearly no lack of dedication or ability among such people.
Dominic
I work with professional women every day whose careers are in the world of information. They are avid Twitterers, expert Flickrites, Facebook fiends, and Foursquare addicts. At my library science grad program, everyone knows how to use MediaWiki, as it is used internally for classes. And yet, for whatever reason, Wikipedia is just not part of their skill set. That is what needs to change. There is clearly no lack of dedication or ability among such people.
Dominic
This is interesting because transferring information from a good reference to a Wikipedia article is for me, and would seem to be for an expert in library science, both a lot of fun and something that maximizes the acceptability of the edits. It is, however, somewhat of a solitary activity, you are almost never seriously challenged regarding editing like that. It is when you make a point that the trouble starts.
Fred
Ryan Kaldari wrote:
If women don't edit Wikipedia because they don't have free time, why are there more women bloggers than men? Keeping a blog requires a lot more time and dedication than editing Wikipedia.
I respond:
As someone who has extensive experience with both, I humbly submit that this assessment of the comparative time requirements of editing Wikipedia and blogging is not a universal truth. While blogging, when I was doing it at my peak, certainly did take a measurable number of hours (assuming the following tasks: writing and researching your posts and putting links into them, reading other blogs you follow and following links from them, and adding comments to posts elsewhere that may or may not link back to your own posts (and this is assuming you don't have a comments section of your own to manage)) from my day, it's been about five years since my last blog post because, among other things, Wikipedia was beginning to claim more of my interest. Today I honestly feel I spend more time editing/taking pictures/processing and uploading pictures/doing administrative tasks than I ever spent on my (anonymous, and it's staying that way for now) blog.
For the stereotypical momblogger that we seem to be talking about here, I think it would take less time to blog (And I can also speak from experience as the stay-at-home parent for this time period, too) than edit.
Daniel Case