Hi Anne, Kerry and Christina - and everyone else,
So the Wikimedia Conference programme committee appears keen to do something useful in terms of creating space for gender - gap work. So I wondered if you had any further thoughts about what *might* work at the Wikimedia Conference.
As Anne points out it is an audience of people from Wikimedia movement organisations - board members, executive directors (where they exist), and a smaller number of other staff. Compared to other Wikimedia events there is probably a greater language and geographical diversity. There is also a reasonable degree of awareness of the issue - better than one would find if you put english Wikipedia administrators in a room.
The main focus for the conference is going to be on helping Wikimedia organisations grow, learn and improve - we are looking to give people practical outcomes, and are avoiding theoretical discussion as far as possible.
Thoughts on what we can put in the programme on this issue are very welcome :) (I'll pass everything on to the programme committee, though I suspect I'm not the only member of it subscribed to this list).
Thanks and happy new year!
Chris On 19 Dec 2014 07:21, "Kerry Raymond" kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Can I suggest that the Wikimedia Conference do a train-the-trainersession with a view to the chapters running sessions locally in addition to the Wikimania session. Not many people get to go to Wikimania so the chapters approach would be more scalable.
Kerry
*From:* gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] *On Behalf Of *Risker *Sent:* Friday, 19 December 2014 2:16 AM *To:* Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. *Subject:* Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries
While it might be suitable as a "pilot" at the Wikimedia Conference (I promise not to harp on the name here), it's a by-invitation conference focused on chapter/affiliate executives, many of whom have very limited on-wiki presence. I'm not persuaded that they're the target audience.
In fact, I'd suggest this would probably be best suited to a full-day session targeted at active Wikimedia project administrators and those with higher level permissions (think: oversighters, who frequently deal with requests from women who feel harassed because of gender; checkusers tracking down sockpuppets of harassers, and stewards, who can act in either role on projects that don't have their own CU/OS). There is not much overlap between these active on-wiki leaders and the leaders of chapters/affiliates. Strikes me that this would be more ideal for Wikimania, perhaps as a pre-WM session if that can be arranged.
Risker/anne
On 18 December 2014 at 11:04, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Christina - this sounds very interesting - would you be happy for me to propose it as a possible topic in the Wikimedia Conference, for which I'm on the programme committee?
Chris
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Christina Burger < christina.burger@wikimedia.de> wrote:
Hi everyone,
Please allow me to briefly introduce myself before coming to the point: I am Christina Dinar and I work at Wikimedia Deutschland for 1,5 years now. Originally, I was employed to take care of community projects that address newbies and enhance the diversity in Wikipedia as well other Wikimedia projects. I came with the professional background of doing workshops with young adults in political education, doing diversity trainings in order to address some of their existing social and violent behavioral problems with each other. Somehow it never got to that moment that I could actually offer this knowledge and experience to the German Wikipedia Community–my professional focus here shifted and I started to work in other fields.
Coming from this background, I could definitely offer a diversity workshop at Wikimania, for functionaries as well as on the level of introduction as a train-the-trainer. We even have developed diversity guidelines (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charting_diversity), that theoretically frame the approach on diversity to the specifics of the Wikimedia world. If I get some positive feedback on offering this workshop at Wikimania–ideally not alone but with another interested person–I am not sure what the best way to proceed is: Wait for the submission process, or get in touch with the organizers to ask for a room and time for this special workshop (as others did in the past)?
I had drafted a proposal for our diversity conference back in 2013 that we could use and build upon - (it was very general at that time, today I would address more the specfics of WM-movements..):
Diversity? Deal with it! – Diversity as a concept has long development in management and especially in human ressource management in order to practically deal with diversity of people coming and working together from different backrounds and levels of knowledge. This 45-min lasting workshop you will actively engage in situations what actually to do and how possibly to act when divers and different opinions, people and backgrounds and communication cultures come together. Different strategies will be developed within the group participants leaving them with set of tools and strategies how to deal with diversity in real life and the online world.
I am very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Warmly, Christina
Christina Dinar Team Communitys
Volunteer Support
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: +49 17639238378 <%2B49%2017639238378> http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
2014-12-14 23:06 GMT+01:00 Jim Hayes slowking4@gmail.com:
yes, training could work at wikimania
the education foundation and eval. folks had seminars during hackathon, and a track at London https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme
what would a required list of HR, managment seminars look like?
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I've added myself to the list of interested people :)
Thinking out loud, would that kind of thing work in person at the Wikimedia Conference and/or Wikimania?
On 12 Dec 2014 19:33, "Siko Bouterse" sbouterse@wikimedia.org wrote:
Along similar lines, this pilot training has been suggested for admins:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Gender-gap_admin_training
And The Ada Initiative said they were interested in providing training for such a pilot. WMF grantmakers like myself would be pleased to see something like this develop into a proposal, if folks felt it was worth trying.
It might make sense to pilot at the admin level before focusing on functionaries like stewards, because admins have more day-to-day interactions with individual editors (and thus more opportunities to facilitate an on-wiki environment that supports diversity).
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Reguyla reguyla@gmail.com wrote:
I think this might be a good idea but it would be pretty hard to implement and I think, unnecessary. Most of the functionaries got to where they are because they have a calm demeanor and generally are fair in how they treat others. Additionally, its not usually the functionaries who are the problem. So without requiring the editors to perform the diversity training, I'm not sure how much it would help.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Don't know if this has been floated before - apologies if so - but:
Part of the problem we have is the sheer depth of ignorance among otherwise well-intentioned community members.
This depth of ignorance is naturally shared by the people who play leadership roles in the community. So we end up with stewards, arbitrators and bureaucrats who potentially end up reinforcing the gender gap problem because they just have no clue how the structure they maintain can sometimes be a tool to exclude people.
How about offering some form of diversity training to functionaries to help broaden perspectives and raise understanding? Obviously, from the point of view of supporting them to do their difficult and fairly thankless roles better, rather than beating them with diversity sticks.
It could happen (indeed, WMF could make it happen with some volunteer input); could it help?
Chris
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
--
Siko Bouterse Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
sbouterse@wikimedia.org
*Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. *
*Donate https://donate.wikimedia.org or click the "edit" button today, and help us make it a reality!*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Im all for practical but I think awareness probably isnt as high as you might hope. I think the report produced by Wikimedia Deutschland is a good recent summary of the state of play and could be a basis for a structure for discussion:
https://ia902308.us.archive.org/32/items/ChartingDiversity-WorkingTogetherTo wardsDiversityInWikipedia/14-wmf-chartingdiversity.pdf
I find when I am talking to people about the subject, the conversation tends to run along these lines.
What are the stats? This is answerable globally, but if you are having a chapter conversation, then they will want to know locally and AFAIK we dont have those stats at a national level. Maybe this is something chapters should be asking for in the next WMF editor survey?
Does it matter? Believe me, a lot of people get really stuck at this point and frame it as well, if women dont want to edit Wikipedia, does it really matter? Its their choice, isnt it? This is something that really needs to get reframed. Yes, of course, many women dont Wikipedia because they simply arent interested in doing so (ditto many men). But there are barriers to entry and barriers to continued participation by women who are interested in doing so compared to men. Try to reframe it are women equally able to edit Wikipedia or are there barriers to women editing?.
The question does having fewer women impact the content of Wikipedia? will come up. Or as a less desirable framing of the question, does it matter if we have less coverage on Wikipedia about romantic comedy movies? or how can women have a different point of view about cricket scores?. Sometimes it will surface as since we dont want POV in an encyclopaedia, why do womens POVs matter?. Here I often point out that what we hold up as a gold standard of encyclopaedia is a traditional view of book-published encyclopaedias from the last couple of centuries. They were written largely by men, were constrained by physical bulk, and the modern reader clearly likes them less than Wikipedia, so using them as an argument for perpetuating any structural aspect of traditional book encyclopaedias needs to be explored in that context. Also, it is not a womens POV that we should be talking but the absence or briefness of aspects of topics that women seem to find more interesting than men. As a concrete example, I went recently on a Wikipedia photo run with a guy. We went to a popular lookout and picnic area. Beyond the obvious things to photograph (the view), he was interested in photographing the highway below and the large flag pole. I was interested in photographing the statue of the dog (long story about the dog omitted) and the love locks on the fence over the waterfall. The guy questioned why Id photograph those things as we wouldnt be writing about them in the article, would we?. He felt that neither of these was encyclopaedic. The article now has the dog story and the love locks and it was amazingly easy to find the citations in the local newspaper because they were human interest stories. I think theres room in Wikipedia for more than just dry facts and statistics. Again, try to turn the question around into does Wikipedia contain what women want to read?. (As an aside, all our policies in Wikipedia are written by editors, curiously we dont involve readers in our policies but arrogantly assume that we know what they want.)
Having convinced people that this is a real issue rather than just an interesting statistic, it is time to turn to the more difficult questions of what we can do about it. But again, make it clear that the problem is not how do we fix the women so they edit Wikipedia more but rather how do we fix Wikipedia so women will edit more. Generally people approach it with the first mindset and that tends to lead to the outreach and edit training solutions, which dont seem to work all that well in practice. If you look at it from the perspective of not changing women, but changing Wikipedia, then different and more productive conversations may occur. For example, I suspect the Visual Editor will help reducing the technological barriers to entry by women (and many men too). But we also need to change the Wikipedia culture.
These days nobody would say of course women are welcome to work here, but best they stay out of the lunchroom because the noticeboard is covered in nude centrefolds. Many workplaces have had to address cultural issues that make women unwelcome. Now nude centrefolds may not be Wikipedias major problem (although I have stumbled on some pretty unsavoury photos on Commons at times whose educational value seems pretty dubious) but how editors interact is a problem. The whole bold-revert-discuss is NOT the natural way women work. I think many women see reverting as a huge slap in the face and they dont stay around to discuss. If you watch women in the workplace, they tend to discuss and build consensus before doing things. I think the notion that any editor has the right to be the judge, jury and executioner over another persons edits is given power to some people who are evidently only too willing to abuse it. Is it only me who finds it disturbing when they see a user contribution list that is just roaming around reverting non-vandalism? Weve got some real bullies out there and no cultural mechanism to deal with them, as the recent ArbCom decision seems to show. Indeed, in which workplaces is it OK to call women a cunt? Hmm.
Because we dont have the solutions to the gender gap in a ready to roll out package. I think the thing to do is to get people to talk about what things they see in everyday life or the workplace that are done to promote diversity and ask what are the equivalent things Wikipedia should be doing?. For example, in the 1970s, we started to see requirements that committees had at least one women representative on them, and nowdays much greater expectation of female representation. Should we have the same thing in a AfD discussion? It cannot close until we get at least the view of one self-identified female editor. Or if our target is 25%, that 25% of votes should be cast by self-identified female editors. Why dont we try that?! It worked in the workplace, more women got appointed to committees, more women got recruited by selection committees with female representation, more women got promoted, etc. The other thing that worked in workplaces was the macro-statistics. It was easy to justify any decision not to employ a women in a particular job (the guy had more experience although her qualifications were better, or vice versa as suited the purpose) but when you looked hiring practices across the organisation or across departments, the stats told a different story overall. When every department manager had a requirement to improve their departments statistics (and their bonus might depend on it), things did change. With all of these things, it might not be the mechanisms themselves that made the difference, but it might be that the mechanisms told people that their organisation was determined to change its gender balance and that it was probably the smart idea to get on board rather than resist. Right now at Wikipedia, we are strongly in the resist phase (deny the problem exists, deny the problem is really a problem, deny that anything can be done about the problem because thats just how we do things around here, etc).
I note that WMF is starting a new strategic planning process. Maybe its something the chapters at the conference might want to discuss in terms of gender gap. The current strategic plan has the 25% target but didnt appear to have any implementations to try to make it happen. It seems to have been a lets all pray it goes to 25%.
So in terms of whether its Wikimania or the Chapters conference, I think we need both an off-the-shelf set of talking points along the lines above. Common questions, common answers. But also from a train-the-trainer perspective, teaching people about this issue of framing and reframing because when you lead these kind of discussions, you have to be alert that you dont allow the framing to slip into:
women have a problem, how do we fix women and show them how to reframe it into Wikipedia has a problem, how do we fix Wikipedia at both the micro and macroscopic levels
The need to emphasise that unless something is done differently, the outcome will not magically change. There is no business as usual solution here. And you need to teach people that cultures can be changed if the organisation wants it to be so and makes that very clear. And for Wikipedia, some cultural change can be enforced in software. For example, if you undo, if you had a tick a box to say under which policy you were undoing, then suddenly it might be a bit harder to undo because I dont like it. It could also trigger a message to the editor whose edit was being undone with explanation and advice in order move away from the slap you in the face and dont bother to talk to you about it culture. Theres lots of things we could try in the platform to reduce or at least detect aggressive behaviours. But right now, I dont think we have a groundswell of people saying yes, we need to change how we operate and maybe we need these kinds of conversations so people begin to see the need for them.
Anyhow, thats my 10c.
Kerry
_____
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Chris Keating Sent: Tuesday, 30 December 2014 4:29 AM To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects Subject: [Gendergap] Wikimedia Conference (was - Diversity training forfunctionaries)
Hi Anne, Kerry and Christina - and everyone else,
So the Wikimedia Conference programme committee appears keen to do something useful in terms of creating space for gender - gap work. So I wondered if you had any further thoughts about what *might* work at the Wikimedia Conference.
As Anne points out it is an audience of people from Wikimedia movement organisations - board members, executive directors (where they exist), and a smaller number of other staff. Compared to other Wikimedia events there is probably a greater language and geographical diversity. There is also a reasonable degree of awareness of the issue - better than one would find if you put english Wikipedia administrators in a room.
The main focus for the conference is going to be on helping Wikimedia organisations grow, learn and improve - we are looking to give people practical outcomes, and are avoiding theoretical discussion as far as possible.
Thoughts on what we can put in the programme on this issue are very welcome :) (I'll pass everything on to the programme committee, though I suspect I'm not the only member of it subscribed to this list).
Thanks and happy new year!
Chris
On 19 Dec 2014 07:21, "Kerry Raymond" kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote:
Can I suggest that the Wikimedia Conference do a train-the-trainer session with a view to the chapters running sessions locally in addition to the Wikimania session. Not many people get to go to Wikimania so the chapters approach would be more scalable.
Kerry
_____
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Risker Sent: Friday, 19 December 2014 2:16 AM To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries
While it might be suitable as a "pilot" at the Wikimedia Conference (I promise not to harp on the name here), it's a by-invitation conference focused on chapter/affiliate executives, many of whom have very limited on-wiki presence. I'm not persuaded that they're the target audience.
In fact, I'd suggest this would probably be best suited to a full-day session targeted at active Wikimedia project administrators and those with higher level permissions (think: oversighters, who frequently deal with requests from women who feel harassed because of gender; checkusers tracking down sockpuppets of harassers, and stewards, who can act in either role on projects that don't have their own CU/OS). There is not much overlap between these active on-wiki leaders and the leaders of chapters/affiliates. Strikes me that this would be more ideal for Wikimania, perhaps as a pre-WM session if that can be arranged.
Risker/anne
On 18 December 2014 at 11:04, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Christina - this sounds very interesting - would you be happy for me to propose it as a possible topic in the Wikimedia Conference, for which I'm on the programme committee?
Chris
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Christina Burger christina.burger@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hi everyone,
Please allow me to briefly introduce myself before coming to the point: I am Christina Dinar and I work at Wikimedia Deutschland for 1,5 years now. Originally, I was employed to take care of community projects that address newbies and enhance the diversity in Wikipedia as well other Wikimedia projects. I came with the professional background of doing workshops with young adults in political education, doing diversity trainings in order to address some of their existing social and violent behavioral problems with each other. Somehow it never got to that moment that I could actually offer this knowledge and experience to the German Wikipedia Communitymy professional focus here shifted and I started to work in other fields.
Coming from this background, I could definitely offer a diversity workshop at Wikimania, for functionaries as well as on the level of introduction as a train-the-trainer. We even have developed diversity guidelines (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charting_diversity), that theoretically frame the approach on diversity to the specifics of the Wikimedia world. If I get some positive feedback on offering this workshop at Wikimaniaideally not alone but with another interested personI am not sure what the best way to proceed is: Wait for the submission process, or get in touch with the organizers to ask for a room and time for this special workshop (as others did in the past)?
I had drafted a proposal for our diversity conference back in 2013 that we could use and build upon - (it was very general at that time, today I would address more the specfics of WM-movements..):
Diversity? Deal with it! Diversity as a concept has long development in management and especially in human ressource management in order to practically deal with diversity of people coming and working together from different backrounds and levels of knowledge. This 45-min lasting workshop you will actively engage in situations what actually to do and how possibly to act when divers and different opinions, people and backgrounds and communication cultures come together. Different strategies will be developed within the group participants leaving them with set of tools and strategies how to deal with diversity in real life and the online world.
I am very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Warmly, Christina
Christina Dinar Team Communitys
Volunteer Support
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: +49 tel:%2B49%2017639238378 17639238378 http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
2014-12-14 23:06 GMT+01:00 Jim Hayes slowking4@gmail.com:
yes, training could work at wikimania
the education foundation and eval. folks had seminars during hackathon, and a track at London https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme
what would a required list of HR, managment seminars look like?
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I've added myself to the list of interested people :)
Thinking out loud, would that kind of thing work in person at the Wikimedia Conference and/or Wikimania?
On 12 Dec 2014 19:33, "Siko Bouterse" sbouterse@wikimedia.org wrote:
Along similar lines, this pilot training has been suggested for admins:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Gender-gap_admin_training
And The Ada Initiative said they were interested in providing training for such a pilot. WMF grantmakers like myself would be pleased to see something like this develop into a proposal, if folks felt it was worth trying.
It might make sense to pilot at the admin level before focusing on functionaries like stewards, because admins have more day-to-day interactions with individual editors (and thus more opportunities to facilitate an on-wiki environment that supports diversity).
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Reguyla reguyla@gmail.com wrote:
I think this might be a good idea but it would be pretty hard to implement and I think, unnecessary. Most of the functionaries got to where they are because they have a calm demeanor and generally are fair in how they treat others. Additionally, its not usually the functionaries who are the problem. So without requiring the editors to perform the diversity training, I'm not sure how much it would help.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Don't know if this has been floated before - apologies if so - but:
Part of the problem we have is the sheer depth of ignorance among otherwise well-intentioned community members.
This depth of ignorance is naturally shared by the people who play leadership roles in the community. So we end up with stewards, arbitrators and bureaucrats who potentially end up reinforcing the gender gap problem because they just have no clue how the structure they maintain can sometimes be a tool to exclude people.
How about offering some form of diversity training to functionaries to help broaden perspectives and raise understanding? Obviously, from the point of view of supporting them to do their difficult and fairly thankless roles better, rather than beating them with diversity sticks.
It could happen (indeed, WMF could make it happen with some volunteer input); could it help?
Chris
_______________________________________________ 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
This point is so important I gave it its own subject line. Perhaps this language can be worked into the statement of purpose of all the WMF Gender gap projects... I also think Kerry should turn her whole excellent statement into an essay for the WMF site and it should be linked from GGTF main page.
On 12/29/2014 4:07 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:
Does it matter? Believe me, a lot of people get really stuck at this point and frame it as “well, if women don’t want to edit Wikipedia, does it really matter? It’s their choice, isn’t it?” This is something that really needs to get reframed. Yes, of course, many women don’t Wikipedia because they simply aren’t interested in doing so (ditto many men). But there are barriers to entry and barriers to continued participation by women who are interested in doing so compared to men. Try to reframe it “are women equally able to edit Wikipedia” or “are there barriers to women editing?”.
Hmm. I stopped editing the Dutch Wikipedia because it just wasn't any fun anymore. I would never say I experienced barriers to entry or that there were barriers to continued participation. It is more that there was a continuous vacuum of silence that made participation feel like I was on an island all of the time. I was never invited to the discussion table on any specific subject, and if I stumbled across one, once there, my replies to statements were never answered directly, but indirectly in replies to others. I was never addressed personally and asked for an opinion. That doesn't happen regularly on Commons or the English Wikipedia either, but I feel much less on an island in bth of those projects and much more a part of a community. Any contribution I made to an ongoing discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia just stopped the discussion altogether or was simply ignored. I vaguely remember a few deletion discussions where my objections were brushed off with ridiculous arguments - so ridiculous that I wouldn't know what to reply in all seriousness. Of course I can't back this up with diffs and it is just a feeling, but it's because of the feeling that I stopped contributing. I guess I also got tired of always linking to redlinks in my area of interest - there are just more people working in my area of interest on the English Wikipedia, so that I feel I can lean more on the work of others.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
This point is so important I gave it its own subject line. Perhaps this language can be worked into the statement of purpose of all the WMF Gender gap projects... I also think Kerry should turn her whole excellent statement into an essay for the WMF site and it should be linked from GGTF main page.
On 12/29/2014 4:07 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:
Does it matter? Believe me, a lot of people get really stuck at this point and frame it as “well, if women don’t want to edit Wikipedia, does it really matter? It’s their choice, isn’t it?” This is something that really needs to get reframed. Yes, of course, many women don’t Wikipedia because they simply aren’t interested in doing so (ditto many men). But there are barriers to entry and barriers to continued participation by women who are interested in doing so compared to men. Try to reframe it “are women equally able to edit Wikipedia” or “are there barriers to women editing?”.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Good points, Jane Part of a hostile editing environment is the "either they ignore you or they insult you" phenomena. I'm sure a lot of women do quit for just the reason Jane describes - being ignored.
I got that quoted phrase from a woman complaining about it in some mainstream article a few years ago. That made a lot of my experiences in email finally comprehensible. I found if I came up with a good idea, I was ignored. If I said something a bit outrageous in conjunction with that idea, some people might actually note the idea and comment on it, among all the outraged guys complaining about whatever (unladylike?) comment I made in conjunction with it.
By the time I came to Wikipedia I was aware of that behavior and trying to find new strategies to get appropriate attention. Of course, on Wikipedia one doesn't have to go out of one's way to get attention if one regularly practices correcting editors, reverting them, seeking third opinions or going to noticeboards, any of which some editors also consider outrageous - particularly if the editor is perceived as being a women.
Of course, if the editors in a specific culture - as where Jane was editing - choose to ignore women even when they are disagreeing with them or, in their eyes, acting outrageous, then that observation would not hold.
CM
On 12/30/2014 10:21 AM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Hmm. I stopped editing the Dutch Wikipedia because it just wasn't any fun anymore. I would never say I experienced barriers to entry or that there were barriers to continued participation. It is more that there was a continuous vacuum of silence that made participation feel like I was on an island all of the time. I was never invited to the discussion table on any specific subject, and if I stumbled across one, once there, my replies to statements were never answered directly, but indirectly in replies to others. I was never addressed personally and asked for an opinion. That doesn't happen regularly on Commons or the English Wikipedia either, but I feel much less on an island in bth of those projects and much more a part of a community. Any contribution I made to an ongoing discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia just stopped the discussion altogether or was simply ignored. I vaguely remember a few deletion discussions where my objections were brushed off with ridiculous arguments - so ridiculous that I wouldn't know what to reply in all seriousness. Of course I can't back this up with diffs and it is just a feeling, but it's because of the feeling that I stopped contributing. I guess I also got tired of always linking to redlinks in my area of interest - there are just more people working in my area of interest on the English Wikipedia, so that I feel I can lean more on the work of others.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net mailto:carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
This point is so important I gave it its own subject line. Perhaps this language can be worked into the statement of purpose of all the WMF Gender gap projects... I also think Kerry should turn her whole excellent statement into an essay for the WMF site and it should be linked from GGTF main page. On 12/29/2014 4:07 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:Does it matter? Believe me, a lot of people get really stuck at this point and frame it as “well, if women don’t want to edit Wikipedia, does it really matter? It’s their choice, isn’t it?” This is something that really needs to get reframed. Yes, of course, many women don’t Wikipedia because they simply aren’t interested in doing so (ditto many men). But there are barriers to entry and barriers to continued participation by women who are interested in doing so compared to men. Try to reframe it “are women equally able to edit Wikipedia” or “are there barriers to women editing?”._______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Yeah..I don't edit as much as I used to on Wikipedia now. I am obsessed with Wikidata and doing more work in Commons again (shocker). :) It's been a while since i've even written an article. But, i do edit each day, just little things, not as prolific as I once was. I'd gladly do it if I was a Wikipedian in Residence again, I like having missions...and I'm burnt out on writing about "women" on Wikipedia. And most of the major projects I've started or been involved in have been completed to the point where I'm no longer interested.
It just wears me out. I feel like every place I step on Wikipedia could lead to me getting harassed or called out on something or whatever..it's like walking on egg shells. This coming from a person who helped lead the fight in creating 'nice' culture on Wikipedia. People just can't let things go, and it just thwarts the energy and passion I have towards editing myself.
But, i've had the pleasure of helping women around the world learn how to edit, so I guess that whole idea of cloning myself sort of worked :)
-Sarah
-Sarah
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Good points, Jane Part of a hostile editing environment is the "either they ignore you or they insult you" phenomena. I'm sure a lot of women do quit for just the reason Jane describes - being ignored.
I got that quoted phrase from a woman complaining about it in some mainstream article a few years ago. That made a lot of my experiences in email finally comprehensible. I found if I came up with a good idea, I was ignored. If I said something a bit outrageous in conjunction with that idea, some people might actually note the idea and comment on it, among all the outraged guys complaining about whatever (unladylike?) comment I made in conjunction with it.
By the time I came to Wikipedia I was aware of that behavior and trying to find new strategies to get appropriate attention. Of course, on Wikipedia one doesn't have to go out of one's way to get attention if one regularly practices correcting editors, reverting them, seeking third opinions or going to noticeboards, any of which some editors also consider outrageous - particularly if the editor is perceived as being a women.
Of course, if the editors in a specific culture - as where Jane was editing - choose to ignore women even when they are disagreeing with them or, in their eyes, acting outrageous, then that observation would not hold.
CM
On 12/30/2014 10:21 AM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Hmm. I stopped editing the Dutch Wikipedia because it just wasn't any fun anymore. I would never say I experienced barriers to entry or that there were barriers to continued participation. It is more that there was a continuous vacuum of silence that made participation feel like I was on an island all of the time. I was never invited to the discussion table on any specific subject, and if I stumbled across one, once there, my replies to statements were never answered directly, but indirectly in replies to others. I was never addressed personally and asked for an opinion. That doesn't happen regularly on Commons or the English Wikipedia either, but I feel much less on an island in bth of those projects and much more a part of a community. Any contribution I made to an ongoing discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia just stopped the discussion altogether or was simply ignored. I vaguely remember a few deletion discussions where my objections were brushed off with ridiculous arguments - so ridiculous that I wouldn't know what to reply in all seriousness. Of course I can't back this up with diffs and it is just a feeling, but it's because of the feeling that I stopped contributing. I guess I also got tired of always linking to redlinks in my area of interest - there are just more people working in my area of interest on the English Wikipedia, so that I feel I can lean more on the work of others.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
This point is so important I gave it its own subject line. Perhaps this language can be worked into the statement of purpose of all the WMF Gender gap projects... I also think Kerry should turn her whole excellent statement into an essay for the WMF site and it should be linked from GGTF main page.
On 12/29/2014 4:07 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:
Does it matter? Believe me, a lot of people get really stuck at this point and frame it as “well, if women don’t want to edit Wikipedia, does it really matter? It’s their choice, isn’t it?” This is something that really needs to get reframed. Yes, of course, many women don’t Wikipedia because they simply aren’t interested in doing so (ditto many men). But there are barriers to entry and barriers to continued participation by women who are interested in doing so compared to men. Try to reframe it “are women equally able to edit Wikipedia” or “are there barriers to women editing?”.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Sorry to read that, Sarah. But maybe you just need a new project! I must admit I make way more edits on Wikidata than anywhere else these days - I believe that is where I can make the most effective contribution. I can't resist writing articles on Wikipedia now and then though.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah..I don't edit as much as I used to on Wikipedia now. I am obsessed with Wikidata and doing more work in Commons again (shocker). :) It's been a while since i've even written an article. But, i do edit each day, just little things, not as prolific as I once was. I'd gladly do it if I was a Wikipedian in Residence again, I like having missions...and I'm burnt out on writing about "women" on Wikipedia. And most of the major projects I've started or been involved in have been completed to the point where I'm no longer interested.
It just wears me out. I feel like every place I step on Wikipedia could lead to me getting harassed or called out on something or whatever..it's like walking on egg shells. This coming from a person who helped lead the fight in creating 'nice' culture on Wikipedia. People just can't let things go, and it just thwarts the energy and passion I have towards editing myself.
But, i've had the pleasure of helping women around the world learn how to edit, so I guess that whole idea of cloning myself sort of worked :)
-Sarah
-Sarah
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Good points, Jane Part of a hostile editing environment is the "either they ignore you or they insult you" phenomena. I'm sure a lot of women do quit for just the reason Jane describes - being ignored.
I got that quoted phrase from a woman complaining about it in some mainstream article a few years ago. That made a lot of my experiences in email finally comprehensible. I found if I came up with a good idea, I was ignored. If I said something a bit outrageous in conjunction with that idea, some people might actually note the idea and comment on it, among all the outraged guys complaining about whatever (unladylike?) comment I made in conjunction with it.
By the time I came to Wikipedia I was aware of that behavior and trying to find new strategies to get appropriate attention. Of course, on Wikipedia one doesn't have to go out of one's way to get attention if one regularly practices correcting editors, reverting them, seeking third opinions or going to noticeboards, any of which some editors also consider outrageous - particularly if the editor is perceived as being a women.
Of course, if the editors in a specific culture - as where Jane was editing - choose to ignore women even when they are disagreeing with them or, in their eyes, acting outrageous, then that observation would not hold.
CM
On 12/30/2014 10:21 AM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Hmm. I stopped editing the Dutch Wikipedia because it just wasn't any fun anymore. I would never say I experienced barriers to entry or that there were barriers to continued participation. It is more that there was a continuous vacuum of silence that made participation feel like I was on an island all of the time. I was never invited to the discussion table on any specific subject, and if I stumbled across one, once there, my replies to statements were never answered directly, but indirectly in replies to others. I was never addressed personally and asked for an opinion. That doesn't happen regularly on Commons or the English Wikipedia either, but I feel much less on an island in bth of those projects and much more a part of a community. Any contribution I made to an ongoing discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia just stopped the discussion altogether or was simply ignored. I vaguely remember a few deletion discussions where my objections were brushed off with ridiculous arguments - so ridiculous that I wouldn't know what to reply in all seriousness. Of course I can't back this up with diffs and it is just a feeling, but it's because of the feeling that I stopped contributing. I guess I also got tired of always linking to redlinks in my area of interest - there are just more people working in my area of interest on the English Wikipedia, so that I feel I can lean more on the work of others.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net
wrote:
This point is so important I gave it its own subject line. Perhaps this language can be worked into the statement of purpose of all the WMF Gender gap projects... I also think Kerry should turn her whole excellent statement into an essay for the WMF site and it should be linked from GGTF main page.
On 12/29/2014 4:07 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:
Does it matter? Believe me, a lot of people get really stuck at this point and frame it as “well, if women don’t want to edit Wikipedia, does it really matter? It’s their choice, isn’t it?” This is something that really needs to get reframed. Yes, of course, many women don’t Wikipedia because they simply aren’t interested in doing so (ditto many men). But there are barriers to entry and barriers to continued participation by women who are interested in doing so compared to men. Try to reframe it “are women equally able to edit Wikipedia” or “are there barriers to women editing?”.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Sarah Stierch
Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
www.sarahstierch.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Wikidata is the bommbbbbbbb!!
:)
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to read that, Sarah. But maybe you just need a new project! I must admit I make way more edits on Wikidata than anywhere else these days - I believe that is where I can make the most effective contribution. I can't resist writing articles on Wikipedia now and then though.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah..I don't edit as much as I used to on Wikipedia now. I am obsessed with Wikidata and doing more work in Commons again (shocker). :) It's been a while since i've even written an article. But, i do edit each day, just little things, not as prolific as I once was. I'd gladly do it if I was a Wikipedian in Residence again, I like having missions...and I'm burnt out on writing about "women" on Wikipedia. And most of the major projects I've started or been involved in have been completed to the point where I'm no longer interested.
It just wears me out. I feel like every place I step on Wikipedia could lead to me getting harassed or called out on something or whatever..it's like walking on egg shells. This coming from a person who helped lead the fight in creating 'nice' culture on Wikipedia. People just can't let things go, and it just thwarts the energy and passion I have towards editing myself.
But, i've had the pleasure of helping women around the world learn how to edit, so I guess that whole idea of cloning myself sort of worked :)
-Sarah
-Sarah
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Carol Moore dc <carolmooredc@verizon.net
wrote:
Good points, Jane Part of a hostile editing environment is the "either they ignore you or they insult you" phenomena. I'm sure a lot of women do quit for just the reason Jane describes - being ignored.
I got that quoted phrase from a woman complaining about it in some mainstream article a few years ago. That made a lot of my experiences in email finally comprehensible. I found if I came up with a good idea, I was ignored. If I said something a bit outrageous in conjunction with that idea, some people might actually note the idea and comment on it, among all the outraged guys complaining about whatever (unladylike?) comment I made in conjunction with it.
By the time I came to Wikipedia I was aware of that behavior and trying to find new strategies to get appropriate attention. Of course, on Wikipedia one doesn't have to go out of one's way to get attention if one regularly practices correcting editors, reverting them, seeking third opinions or going to noticeboards, any of which some editors also consider outrageous - particularly if the editor is perceived as being a women.
Of course, if the editors in a specific culture - as where Jane was editing - choose to ignore women even when they are disagreeing with them or, in their eyes, acting outrageous, then that observation would not hold.
CM
On 12/30/2014 10:21 AM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Hmm. I stopped editing the Dutch Wikipedia because it just wasn't any fun anymore. I would never say I experienced barriers to entry or that there were barriers to continued participation. It is more that there was a continuous vacuum of silence that made participation feel like I was on an island all of the time. I was never invited to the discussion table on any specific subject, and if I stumbled across one, once there, my replies to statements were never answered directly, but indirectly in replies to others. I was never addressed personally and asked for an opinion. That doesn't happen regularly on Commons or the English Wikipedia either, but I feel much less on an island in bth of those projects and much more a part of a community. Any contribution I made to an ongoing discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia just stopped the discussion altogether or was simply ignored. I vaguely remember a few deletion discussions where my objections were brushed off with ridiculous arguments - so ridiculous that I wouldn't know what to reply in all seriousness. Of course I can't back this up with diffs and it is just a feeling, but it's because of the feeling that I stopped contributing. I guess I also got tired of always linking to redlinks in my area of interest - there are just more people working in my area of interest on the English Wikipedia, so that I feel I can lean more on the work of others.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Carol Moore dc < carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
This point is so important I gave it its own subject line. Perhaps this language can be worked into the statement of purpose of all the WMF Gender gap projects... I also think Kerry should turn her whole excellent statement into an essay for the WMF site and it should be linked from GGTF main page.
On 12/29/2014 4:07 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:
Does it matter? Believe me, a lot of people get really stuck at this point and frame it as “well, if women don’t want to edit Wikipedia, does it really matter? It’s their choice, isn’t it?” This is something that really needs to get reframed. Yes, of course, many women don’t Wikipedia because they simply aren’t interested in doing so (ditto many men). But there are barriers to entry and barriers to continued participation by women who are interested in doing so compared to men. Try to reframe it “are women equally able to edit Wikipedia” or “are there barriers to women editing?”.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Sarah Stierch
Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
www.sarahstierch.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
totally!
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:04 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Wikidata is the bommbbbbbbb!!
:)
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 11:00 AM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
Sorry to read that, Sarah. But maybe you just need a new project! I must admit I make way more edits on Wikidata than anywhere else these days - I believe that is where I can make the most effective contribution. I can't resist writing articles on Wikipedia now and then though.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 5:56 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah..I don't edit as much as I used to on Wikipedia now. I am obsessed with Wikidata and doing more work in Commons again (shocker). :) It's been a while since i've even written an article. But, i do edit each day, just little things, not as prolific as I once was. I'd gladly do it if I was a Wikipedian in Residence again, I like having missions...and I'm burnt out on writing about "women" on Wikipedia. And most of the major projects I've started or been involved in have been completed to the point where I'm no longer interested.
It just wears me out. I feel like every place I step on Wikipedia could lead to me getting harassed or called out on something or whatever..it's like walking on egg shells. This coming from a person who helped lead the fight in creating 'nice' culture on Wikipedia. People just can't let things go, and it just thwarts the energy and passion I have towards editing myself.
But, i've had the pleasure of helping women around the world learn how to edit, so I guess that whole idea of cloning myself sort of worked :)
-Sarah
-Sarah
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 8:27 AM, Carol Moore dc < carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
Good points, Jane Part of a hostile editing environment is the "either they ignore you or they insult you" phenomena. I'm sure a lot of women do quit for just the reason Jane describes - being ignored.
I got that quoted phrase from a woman complaining about it in some mainstream article a few years ago. That made a lot of my experiences in email finally comprehensible. I found if I came up with a good idea, I was ignored. If I said something a bit outrageous in conjunction with that idea, some people might actually note the idea and comment on it, among all the outraged guys complaining about whatever (unladylike?) comment I made in conjunction with it.
By the time I came to Wikipedia I was aware of that behavior and trying to find new strategies to get appropriate attention. Of course, on Wikipedia one doesn't have to go out of one's way to get attention if one regularly practices correcting editors, reverting them, seeking third opinions or going to noticeboards, any of which some editors also consider outrageous - particularly if the editor is perceived as being a women.
Of course, if the editors in a specific culture - as where Jane was editing - choose to ignore women even when they are disagreeing with them or, in their eyes, acting outrageous, then that observation would not hold.
CM
On 12/30/2014 10:21 AM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Hmm. I stopped editing the Dutch Wikipedia because it just wasn't any fun anymore. I would never say I experienced barriers to entry or that there were barriers to continued participation. It is more that there was a continuous vacuum of silence that made participation feel like I was on an island all of the time. I was never invited to the discussion table on any specific subject, and if I stumbled across one, once there, my replies to statements were never answered directly, but indirectly in replies to others. I was never addressed personally and asked for an opinion. That doesn't happen regularly on Commons or the English Wikipedia either, but I feel much less on an island in bth of those projects and much more a part of a community. Any contribution I made to an ongoing discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia just stopped the discussion altogether or was simply ignored. I vaguely remember a few deletion discussions where my objections were brushed off with ridiculous arguments - so ridiculous that I wouldn't know what to reply in all seriousness. Of course I can't back this up with diffs and it is just a feeling, but it's because of the feeling that I stopped contributing. I guess I also got tired of always linking to redlinks in my area of interest - there are just more people working in my area of interest on the English Wikipedia, so that I feel I can lean more on the work of others.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Carol Moore dc < carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
This point is so important I gave it its own subject line. Perhaps this language can be worked into the statement of purpose of all the WMF Gender gap projects... I also think Kerry should turn her whole excellent statement into an essay for the WMF site and it should be linked from GGTF main page.
On 12/29/2014 4:07 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:
Does it matter? Believe me, a lot of people get really stuck at this point and frame it as “well, if women don’t want to edit Wikipedia, does it really matter? It’s their choice, isn’t it?” This is something that really needs to get reframed. Yes, of course, many women don’t Wikipedia because they simply aren’t interested in doing so (ditto many men). But there are barriers to entry and barriers to continued participation by women who are interested in doing so compared to men. Try to reframe it “are women equally able to edit Wikipedia” or “are there barriers to women editing?”.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Sarah Stierch
Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
www.sarahstierch.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Sarah Stierch
Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
www.sarahstierch.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I do call the Dutch Wikipedia a hostile editing environment, but I am not convinced that environment is more hostile to women than to men. It is decidedly hostile to all newcomers and all outsiders, where I would consider outsiders to be people who make edits less often than once per month.
I never thought about whether women get the silent treatment more than men, butif they do, this could just be a byproduct of women having an innate interest in things more appealing to women than to men, and with a female editor population of 6%, someone with those interests is more likely to get the silent treatment just because of female editor scarcity. That said, it is also quite possible that the silent treatment is some sort of symptom of discrimination, though I would need to see some numbers to be convinced of it.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 5:27 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
Good points, Jane Part of a hostile editing environment is the "either they ignore you or they insult you" phenomena. I'm sure a lot of women do quit for just the reason Jane describes - being ignored.
I got that quoted phrase from a woman complaining about it in some mainstream article a few years ago. That made a lot of my experiences in email finally comprehensible. I found if I came up with a good idea, I was ignored. If I said something a bit outrageous in conjunction with that idea, some people might actually note the idea and comment on it, among all the outraged guys complaining about whatever (unladylike?) comment I made in conjunction with it.
By the time I came to Wikipedia I was aware of that behavior and trying to find new strategies to get appropriate attention. Of course, on Wikipedia one doesn't have to go out of one's way to get attention if one regularly practices correcting editors, reverting them, seeking third opinions or going to noticeboards, any of which some editors also consider outrageous - particularly if the editor is perceived as being a women.
Of course, if the editors in a specific culture - as where Jane was editing - choose to ignore women even when they are disagreeing with them or, in their eyes, acting outrageous, then that observation would not hold.
CM
On 12/30/2014 10:21 AM, Jane Darnell wrote:
Hmm. I stopped editing the Dutch Wikipedia because it just wasn't any fun anymore. I would never say I experienced barriers to entry or that there were barriers to continued participation. It is more that there was a continuous vacuum of silence that made participation feel like I was on an island all of the time. I was never invited to the discussion table on any specific subject, and if I stumbled across one, once there, my replies to statements were never answered directly, but indirectly in replies to others. I was never addressed personally and asked for an opinion. That doesn't happen regularly on Commons or the English Wikipedia either, but I feel much less on an island in bth of those projects and much more a part of a community. Any contribution I made to an ongoing discussion on the Dutch Wikipedia just stopped the discussion altogether or was simply ignored. I vaguely remember a few deletion discussions where my objections were brushed off with ridiculous arguments - so ridiculous that I wouldn't know what to reply in all seriousness. Of course I can't back this up with diffs and it is just a feeling, but it's because of the feeling that I stopped contributing. I guess I also got tired of always linking to redlinks in my area of interest - there are just more people working in my area of interest on the English Wikipedia, so that I feel I can lean more on the work of others.
On Tue, Dec 30, 2014 at 4:03 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
This point is so important I gave it its own subject line. Perhaps this language can be worked into the statement of purpose of all the WMF Gender gap projects... I also think Kerry should turn her whole excellent statement into an essay for the WMF site and it should be linked from GGTF main page.
On 12/29/2014 4:07 PM, Kerry Raymond wrote:
Does it matter? Believe me, a lot of people get really stuck at this point and frame it as “well, if women don’t want to edit Wikipedia, does it really matter? It’s their choice, isn’t it?” This is something that really needs to get reframed. Yes, of course, many women don’t Wikipedia because they simply aren’t interested in doing so (ditto many men). But there are barriers to entry and barriers to continued participation by women who are interested in doing so compared to men. Try to reframe it “are women equally able to edit Wikipedia” or “are there barriers to women editing?”.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit:https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
It would be very easy for us to host a two hour session in London on a weekday evening at the UK offices. I am fairly sure we could get a bunch of admins and others to attend, aside from some of the London regulars who have agreed in principle, a geonotice would likely attract more.
I have no problem arranging the room, putting up a geonotice and being an attendee. However I would need a volunteer to run the session. That isn't just because I'm the wrong gender to run such an event, but at the moment I don't know what changes in behaviour you would be hoping to train people into.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
On 29 Dec 2014, at 18:28, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anne, Kerry and Christina - and everyone else,
So the Wikimedia Conference programme committee appears keen to do something useful in terms of creating space for gender - gap work. So I wondered if you had any further thoughts about what *might* work at the Wikimedia Conference.
As Anne points out it is an audience of people from Wikimedia movement organisations - board members, executive directors (where they exist), and a smaller number of other staff. Compared to other Wikimedia events there is probably a greater language and geographical diversity. There is also a reasonable degree of awareness of the issue - better than one would find if you put english Wikipedia administrators in a room.
The main focus for the conference is going to be on helping Wikimedia organisations grow, learn and improve - we are looking to give people practical outcomes, and are avoiding theoretical discussion as far as possible.
Thoughts on what we can put in the programme on this issue are very welcome :) (I'll pass everything on to the programme committee, though I suspect I'm not the only member of it subscribed to this list).
Thanks and happy new year!
Chris
On 19 Dec 2014 07:21, "Kerry Raymond" kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote: Can I suggest that the Wikimedia Conference do a train-the-trainer session with a view to the chapters running sessions locally in addition to the Wikimania session. Not many people get to go to Wikimania so the chapters approach would be more scalable.
Kerry
From: gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:gendergap-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Risker Sent: Friday, 19 December 2014 2:16 AM To: Addressing gender equity and exploring ways to increase the participationof women within Wikimedia projects. Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Diversity training for functionaries
While it might be suitable as a "pilot" at the Wikimedia Conference (I promise not to harp on the name here), it's a by-invitation conference focused on chapter/affiliate executives, many of whom have very limited on-wiki presence. I'm not persuaded that they're the target audience.
In fact, I'd suggest this would probably be best suited to a full-day session targeted at active Wikimedia project administrators and those with higher level permissions (think: oversighters, who frequently deal with requests from women who feel harassed because of gender; checkusers tracking down sockpuppets of harassers, and stewards, who can act in either role on projects that don't have their own CU/OS). There is not much overlap between these active on-wiki leaders and the leaders of chapters/affiliates. Strikes me that this would be more ideal for Wikimania, perhaps as a pre-WM session if that can be arranged.
Risker/anne
On 18 December 2014 at 11:04, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Christina - this sounds very interesting - would you be happy for me to propose it as a possible topic in the Wikimedia Conference, for which I'm on the programme committee?
Chris
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Christina Burger christina.burger@wikimedia.de wrote:
Hi everyone,
Please allow me to briefly introduce myself before coming to the point: I am Christina Dinar and I work at Wikimedia Deutschland for 1,5 years now. Originally, I was employed to take care of community projects that address newbies and enhance the diversity in Wikipedia as well other Wikimedia projects. I came with the professional background of doing workshops with young adults in political education, doing diversity trainings in order to address some of their existing social and violent behavioral problems with each other. Somehow it never got to that moment that I could actually offer this knowledge and experience to the German Wikipedia Community–my professional focus here shifted and I started to work in other fields.
Coming from this background, I could definitely offer a diversity workshop at Wikimania, for functionaries as well as on the level of introduction as a train-the-trainer. We even have developed diversity guidelines (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Charting_diversity), that theoretically frame the approach on diversity to the specifics of the Wikimedia world. If I get some positive feedback on offering this workshop at Wikimania–ideally not alone but with another interested person–I am not sure what the best way to proceed is: Wait for the submission process, or get in touch with the organizers to ask for a room and time for this special workshop (as others did in the past)?
I had drafted a proposal for our diversity conference back in 2013 that we could use and build upon - (it was very general at that time, today I would address more the specfics of WM-movements..):
Diversity? Deal with it! – Diversity as a concept has long development in management and especially in human ressource management in order to practically deal with diversity of people coming and working together from different backrounds and levels of knowledge. This 45-min lasting workshop you will actively engage in situations what actually to do and how possibly to act when divers and different opinions, people and backgrounds and communication cultures come together. Different strategies will be developed within the group participants leaving them with set of tools and strategies how to deal with diversity in real life and the online world.
I am very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts.
Warmly, Christina
Christina Dinar Team Communitys
Volunteer Support
Wikimedia Deutschland e.V. | Tempelhofer Ufer 23-24 | 10963 Berlin Tel. (030) 219 158 260 Mobil: +49 17639238378 http://wikimedia.de
Wikimedia Deutschland - Gesellschaft zur Förderung Freien Wissens e.V. Eingetragen im Vereinsregister des Amtsgerichts Berlin-Charlottenburg unter der Nummer 23855 B. Als gemeinnützig anerkannt durch das Finanzamt für Körperschaften I Berlin, Steuernummer 27/681/51985.
2014-12-14 23:06 GMT+01:00 Jim Hayes slowking4@gmail.com:
yes, training could work at wikimania
the education foundation and eval. folks had seminars during hackathon, and a track at London https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme
what would a required list of HR, managment seminars look like?
On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 2:32 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
I've added myself to the list of interested people :)
Thinking out loud, would that kind of thing work in person at the Wikimedia Conference and/or Wikimania?
On 12 Dec 2014 19:33, "Siko Bouterse" sbouterse@wikimedia.org wrote:
Along similar lines, this pilot training has been suggested for admins:
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Gender-gap_admin_training
And The Ada Initiative said they were interested in providing training for such a pilot. WMF grantmakers like myself would be pleased to see something like this develop into a proposal, if folks felt it was worth trying.
It might make sense to pilot at the admin level before focusing on functionaries like stewards, because admins have more day-to-day interactions with individual editors (and thus more opportunities to facilitate an on-wiki environment that supports diversity).
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 11:16 AM, Reguyla reguyla@gmail.com wrote:
I think this might be a good idea but it would be pretty hard to implement and I think, unnecessary. Most of the functionaries got to where they are because they have a calm demeanor and generally are fair in how they treat others. Additionally, its not usually the functionaries who are the problem. So without requiring the editors to perform the diversity training, I'm not sure how much it would help.
On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:48 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Don't know if this has been floated before - apologies if so - but:
Part of the problem we have is the sheer depth of ignorance among otherwise well-intentioned community members.
This depth of ignorance is naturally shared by the people who play leadership roles in the community. So we end up with stewards, arbitrators and bureaucrats who potentially end up reinforcing the gender gap problem because they just have no clue how the structure they maintain can sometimes be a tool to exclude people.
How about offering some form of diversity training to functionaries to help broaden perspectives and raise understanding? Obviously, from the point of view of supporting them to do their difficult and fairly thankless roles better, rather than beating them with diversity sticks.
It could happen (indeed, WMF could make it happen with some volunteer input); could it help?
Chris
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
--
Siko Bouterse Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.
sbouterse@wikimedia.org
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.
Donate or click the "edit" button today, and help us make it a reality!
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Anne, Kerry and Christina - and everyone else,
So the Wikimedia Conference programme committee appears keen to do something useful in terms of creating space for gender - gap work. So I wondered if you had any further thoughts about what *might* work at the Wikimedia Conference.
As Anne points out it is an audience of people from Wikimedia movement organisations - board members, executive directors (where they exist), and a smaller number of other staff. Compared to other Wikimedia events there is probably a greater language and geographical diversity. There is also a reasonable degree of awareness of the issue - better than one would find if you put english Wikipedia administrators in a room.
The main focus for the conference is going to be on helping Wikimedia organisations grow, learn and improve - we are looking to give people practical outcomes, and are avoiding theoretical discussion as far as possible.
Thoughts on what we can put in the programme on this issue are very welcome :) (I'll pass everything on to the programme committee, though I suspect I'm not the only member of it subscribed to this list).
Thanks and happy new year!
Chris
The simplest thing to do is to describe the gender gap related efforts that other organizations have sponsored, urge the various movement entities to consider their own initiatives and - especially - push them to innovate. Few if any organized efforts have resulted in even small lasting change, so brainstorming ways in which chapters etc. can put their resources - real life organization and money - to use will be of greatest benefit. This is an area where a chapter or affiliate has the opportunity to be a global leader and to have a high profile impact, and the more they understand that the more likely they are to participate.
I don't know how it goes in other parts of the world but here in the UK if you apply for a job, take a one day course in a particular subject, or do just about anything, there is always an equal opportunities monitoring form like this one: http://www.city.ac.uk/about/working-at-city/hr-policies-and-health-and-safet... to fill in.
I found it a bit shocking when I registered for Facebook, Wikipedia and other US-based websites that they had no apparent interest in the demographic make up of those opening accounts. If Wikipedia had an equal opps form at the point of registering a lot of this talk of doing surveys and trying to figure this stuff out retrospectively could be avoided.
It's just not the kind of conversation that takes place in the UK because the first thing that happens is the equal opps forms are collected into a pile, there is an afternoon set aside for data entry, and there are your stats. I find talk of surveys a bit frustrating.
Marie
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:56:44 -0500 From: nawrich@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikimedia Conference (was - Diversity training for functionaries)
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Chris Keating chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com wrote: Hi Anne, Kerry and Christina - and everyone else, So the Wikimedia Conference programme committee appears keen to do something useful in terms of creating space for gender - gap work. So I wondered if you had any further thoughts about what *might* work at the Wikimedia Conference. As Anne points out it is an audience of people from Wikimedia movement organisations - board members, executive directors (where they exist), and a smaller number of other staff. Compared to other Wikimedia events there is probably a greater language and geographical diversity. There is also a reasonable degree of awareness of the issue - better than one would find if you put english Wikipedia administrators in a room. The main focus for the conference is going to be on helping Wikimedia organisations grow, learn and improve - we are looking to give people practical outcomes, and are avoiding theoretical discussion as far as possible. Thoughts on what we can put in the programme on this issue are very welcome :) (I'll pass everything on to the programme committee, though I suspect I'm not the only member of it subscribed to this list). Thanks and happy new year! Chris The simplest thing to do is to describe the gender gap related efforts that other organizations have sponsored, urge the various movement entities to consider their own initiatives and - especially - push them to innovate. Few if any organized efforts have resulted in even small lasting change, so brainstorming ways in which chapters etc. can put their resources - real life organization and money - to use will be of greatest benefit. This is an area where a chapter or affiliate has the opportunity to be a global leader and to have a high profile impact, and the more they understand that the more likely they are to participate.
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Keep in mind that the majority of Wikimedians (i.e., people making edits on the 900+ sites hosted by the WMF) do so without registering an account. The existence of these projects was entirely dependent on that fact in the early days (and in younger and smaller projects, still is). I recall seeing data indicating that over 90% of Wikimedians made their first edits without creating an account, and I'll wager the same is true for the majority of people on this list, at least anyone who joined before about 2009. However, as time has progressed, it's become increasingly difficult to get edits accepted from unregistered editors: some projects have flagged revisions for every single edit, for example, which means that an edit by an IP isn't even visible until it's been "approved" - which can sometimes take weeks; others have groups of 'recent changes patrollers' that revert almost all edits by unregistered users ("anti-vandalism patrol") whether or not the content is reasonable or even good. A while back, I decided to do some minor copy edits without logging in, and was within a whisker of getting blocked for fixing typos - 70% of my edits were reverted, even though 100% of them were correct.
The sad point is that Wikipedia *has* changed. But it's not changed in the direction that encourages *any* new users to participate - regardless of gender. Nobody knew whether my edits were from a woman or a man; they were just reverted. With templates, but not a single actual attempt at human contact. Today, I wouldn't even get the templates, I bet; there's probably an edit filter somewhere that will prevent me from making the edit in the first place. Even if it's right.
Risker/Anne
On 30 December 2014 at 14:55, Marie Earley eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
I don't know how it goes in other parts of the world but here in the UK if you apply for a job, take a one day course in a particular subject, or do just about anything, there is always an equal opportunities monitoring form like this one: http://www.city.ac.uk/about/working-at-city/hr-policies-and-health-and-safet... to fill in.
I found it a bit shocking when I registered for Facebook, Wikipedia and other US-based websites that they had no apparent interest in the demographic make up of those opening accounts. If Wikipedia had an equal opps form at the point of registering a lot of this talk of doing surveys and trying to figure this stuff out retrospectively could be avoided.
It's just not the kind of conversation that takes place in the UK because the first thing that happens is the equal opps forms are collected into a pile, there is an afternoon set aside for data entry, and there are your stats. I find talk of surveys a bit frustrating.
Marie
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:56:44 -0500 From: nawrich@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikimedia Conference (was - Diversity training for functionaries)
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Anne, Kerry and Christina - and everyone else,
So the Wikimedia Conference programme committee appears keen to do something useful in terms of creating space for gender - gap work. So I wondered if you had any further thoughts about what *might* work at the Wikimedia Conference.
As Anne points out it is an audience of people from Wikimedia movement organisations - board members, executive directors (where they exist), and a smaller number of other staff. Compared to other Wikimedia events there is probably a greater language and geographical diversity. There is also a reasonable degree of awareness of the issue - better than one would find if you put english Wikipedia administrators in a room.
The main focus for the conference is going to be on helping Wikimedia organisations grow, learn and improve - we are looking to give people practical outcomes, and are avoiding theoretical discussion as far as possible.
Thoughts on what we can put in the programme on this issue are very welcome :) (I'll pass everything on to the programme committee, though I suspect I'm not the only member of it subscribed to this list).
Thanks and happy new year!
Chris
The simplest thing to do is to describe the gender gap related efforts that other organizations have sponsored, urge the various movement entities to consider their own initiatives and - especially - push them to innovate. Few if any organized efforts have resulted in even small lasting change, so brainstorming ways in which chapters etc. can put their resources - real life organization and money - to use will be of greatest benefit. This is an area where a chapter or affiliate has the opportunity to be a global leader and to have a high profile impact, and the more they understand that the more likely they are to participate.
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The below definitely are interesting issues which deserve their own thread. I kept reading the proposals but had not run into the implementation very often. On 12/30/2014 3:24 PM, Risker wrote:
Keep in mind that the majority of Wikimedians (i.e., people making edits on the 900+ sites hosted by the WMF) do so without registering an account. The existence of these projects was entirely dependent on that fact in the early days (and in younger and smaller projects, still is). I recall seeing data indicating that over 90% of Wikimedians made their first edits without creating an account, and I'll wager the same is true for the majority of people on this list, at least anyone who joined before about 2009. However, as time has progressed, it's become increasingly difficult to get edits accepted from unregistered editors: some projects have flagged revisions for every single edit, for example, which means that an edit by an IP isn't even visible until it's been "approved" - which can sometimes take weeks;
**Wikiprojects themselves can do it? What percentage of projects do it and articles covered?
others have groups of 'recent changes patrollers' that revert almost all edits by unregistered users ("anti-vandalism patrol") whether or not the content is reasonable or even good.
**I somehow ended up as one on the "devolution" article and dealt with it; what happens when all patrollers for an article stop watching for whatever reason?
A while back, I decided to do some minor copy edits without logging in, and was within a whisker of getting blocked for fixing typos - 70% of my edits were reverted, even though 100% of them were correct.
**Which of the above systems did this or usual editing practices from questionable editors?
Does this show that WMF is more interested in looking for techno-fixes to the problems of vandalism or crappy editing by inexperienced editors? That projects are being dominated by individuals, possibly for personal reasons or POV reasons?
I think it was Wikipediocracy that alleged they are putting most of their $50 million a year into tech. With a little for research, but nothing to support editors.
REAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS do help out their writers. Why not hire a) mentors to help new editors out, including dealing with civility issues, at least showing them where to go or asking uncivil jerks to lay off and b) mediators for more experienced editors having content disputes.
Maybe that's another theme to guilt trip WMF about - being a REAL encyclopedia and not just a technopolis (or whatever negative term best describes whatever it is they are doing.)
CM
There are already plenty of mentors on Wikipedia...no one needs to pay for it. There is already an individual engagement grant focusing on a mentor program. Can't link to it but on my user talk page there is an invite to participate.
That is funded. When I worked at WMF they decided to out the onus on the community. so don't expect WMF to be leading the fight.
That changed years ago. It's up to the community to do it.
Sarah On Dec 31, 2014 8:52 AM, "Carol Moore dc" carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
The below definitely are interesting issues which deserve their own thread. I kept reading the proposals but had not run into the implementation very often. On 12/30/2014 3:24 PM, Risker wrote:
Keep in mind that the majority of Wikimedians (i.e., people making edits on the 900+ sites hosted by the WMF) do so without registering an account. The existence of these projects was entirely dependent on that fact in the early days (and in younger and smaller projects, still is). I recall seeing data indicating that over 90% of Wikimedians made their first edits without creating an account, and I'll wager the same is true for the majority of people on this list, at least anyone who joined before about 2009. However, as time has progressed, it's become increasingly difficult to get edits accepted from unregistered editors: some projects have flagged revisions for every single edit, for example, which means that an edit by an IP isn't even visible until it's been "approved" - which can sometimes take weeks;
**Wikiprojects themselves can do it? What percentage of projects do it and articles covered?
others have groups of 'recent changes patrollers' that revert almost all
edits by unregistered users ("anti-vandalism patrol") whether or not the content is reasonable or even good.
**I somehow ended up as one on the "devolution" article and dealt with it; what happens when all patrollers for an article stop watching for whatever reason?
A while back, I decided to do some minor copy edits without logging in,
and was within a whisker of getting blocked for fixing typos - 70% of my edits were reverted, even though 100% of them were correct.
**Which of the above systems did this or usual editing practices from questionable editors?
Does this show that WMF is more interested in looking for techno-fixes to the problems of vandalism or crappy editing by inexperienced editors? That projects are being dominated by individuals, possibly for personal reasons or POV reasons?
I think it was Wikipediocracy that alleged they are putting most of their $50 million a year into tech. With a little for research, but nothing to support editors.
REAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS do help out their writers. Why not hire a) mentors to help new editors out, including dealing with civility issues, at least showing them where to go or asking uncivil jerks to lay off and b) mediators for more experienced editors having content disputes.
Maybe that's another theme to guilt trip WMF about - being a REAL encyclopedia and not just a technopolis (or whatever negative term best describes whatever it is they are doing.)
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 31 December 2014 at 11:52, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
The below definitely are interesting issues which deserve their own thread. I kept reading the proposals but had not run into the implementation very often. On 12/30/2014 3:24 PM, Risker wrote:
Keep in mind that the majority of Wikimedians (i.e., people making edits on the 900+ sites hosted by the WMF) do so without registering an account. The existence of these projects was entirely dependent on that fact in the early days (and in younger and smaller projects, still is). I recall seeing data indicating that over 90% of Wikimedians made their first edits without creating an account, and I'll wager the same is true for the majority of people on this list, at least anyone who joined before about 2009. However, as time has progressed, it's become increasingly difficult to get edits accepted from unregistered editors: some projects have flagged revisions for every single edit, for example, which means that an edit by an IP isn't even visible until it's been "approved" - which can sometimes take weeks;
**Wikiprojects themselves can do it? What percentage of projects do it and articles covered?
German Wikipedia, Russian Wikipedia and some other projecs have flagged revisions (aka pending changes) on ALL articles, and there are others as well but I don't recall them off the top of my head.
The vast majority of wikiprojects have only a few active members; the most active on enwiki seem to be related to entertainment and US politics. Wikiprojects have no relationship with adding flagged revisions on enwiki: it is a form of page protection and can only be added by administrators based on specific criteria. "Repeated vandalism from unregistered users" is the most common one, followed closely by "repeated unsourced BLP-related/statistical edits by unregistered users". There is a secondary level of flagged revisions that permits only those with "reviewer" level permissions to accept edits; however, it is extremely controversial because it's all-or-nothing (either you have it for any article or you don't have that permission at all) and it is very easy to manipulate articles through this.
others have groups of 'recent changes patrollers' that revert almost all
edits by unregistered users ("anti-vandalism patrol") whether or not the content is reasonable or even good.
**I somehow ended up as one on the "devolution" article and dealt with it; what happens when all patrollers for an article stop watching for whatever reason?
The majority of recent changes patrollers work off the recent changes feed, not watchlists.
A while back, I decided to do some minor copy edits without logging in,
and was within a whisker of getting blocked for fixing typos - 70% of my edits were reverted, even though 100% of them were correct.
**Which of the above systems did this or usual editing practices from questionable editors?
I suspect this was people working off the recent changes feed. You can select reviewing all edits or only those from unregistered (IP) editors, and quite a few RC patrollers *only* monitor IP edits.
Does this show that WMF is more interested in looking for techno-fixes to the problems of vandalism or crappy editing by inexperienced editors? That projects are being dominated by individuals, possibly for personal reasons or POV reasons?
In fairness here, all of the technologies that have been built to reduce vandalism/crappy editing by inexperienced editors were built at the request of (and often by) members of the editing communities. Most edit filters are written by community members, and the overall management of the edit filters is done by community members; the WMF staff only step in if a filter is having a problematic effect on something core like page load time.
I think it was Wikipediocracy that alleged they are putting most of their $50 million a year into tech. With a little for research, but nothing to support editors.
REAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS do help out their writers. Why not hire a) mentors to help new editors out, including dealing with civility issues, at least showing them where to go or asking uncivil jerks to lay off and b) mediators for more experienced editors having content disputes.
I don't know where you get your data about "REAL ENCYCLOPEDIAS" - or how comparable it would be given the commercial and profit-oriented and expertise-oriented differences between "them" and "us". But I'm not averse to the WMF doing some significant beefing up of the community advocacy department.
Risker/Anne
Absolutely agree with doing something like this on Wikipedia. On Dec 30, 2014 12:56 PM, "Marie Earley" eiryel@hotmail.com wrote:
I don't know how it goes in other parts of the world but here in the UK if you apply for a job, take a one day course in a particular subject, or do just about anything, there is always an equal opportunities monitoring form like this one: http://www.city.ac.uk/about/working-at-city/hr-policies-and-health-and-safet... to fill in.
I found it a bit shocking when I registered for Facebook, Wikipedia and other US-based websites that they had no apparent interest in the demographic make up of those opening accounts. If Wikipedia had an equal opps form at the point of registering a lot of this talk of doing surveys and trying to figure this stuff out retrospectively could be avoided.
It's just not the kind of conversation that takes place in the UK because the first thing that happens is the equal opps forms are collected into a pile, there is an afternoon set aside for data entry, and there are your stats. I find talk of surveys a bit frustrating.
Marie
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2014 21:56:44 -0500 From: nawrich@gmail.com To: gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikimedia Conference (was - Diversity training for functionaries)
On Mon, Dec 29, 2014 at 1:28 PM, Chris Keating <chriskeatingwiki@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Anne, Kerry and Christina - and everyone else,
So the Wikimedia Conference programme committee appears keen to do something useful in terms of creating space for gender - gap work. So I wondered if you had any further thoughts about what *might* work at the Wikimedia Conference.
As Anne points out it is an audience of people from Wikimedia movement organisations - board members, executive directors (where they exist), and a smaller number of other staff. Compared to other Wikimedia events there is probably a greater language and geographical diversity. There is also a reasonable degree of awareness of the issue - better than one would find if you put english Wikipedia administrators in a room.
The main focus for the conference is going to be on helping Wikimedia organisations grow, learn and improve - we are looking to give people practical outcomes, and are avoiding theoretical discussion as far as possible.
Thoughts on what we can put in the programme on this issue are very welcome :) (I'll pass everything on to the programme committee, though I suspect I'm not the only member of it subscribed to this list).
Thanks and happy new year!
Chris
The simplest thing to do is to describe the gender gap related efforts that other organizations have sponsored, urge the various movement entities to consider their own initiatives and - especially - push them to innovate. Few if any organized efforts have resulted in even small lasting change, so brainstorming ways in which chapters etc. can put their resources - real life organization and money - to use will be of greatest benefit. This is an area where a chapter or affiliate has the opportunity to be a global leader and to have a high profile impact, and the more they understand that the more likely they are to participate.
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org To manage your subscription preferences, including unsubscribing, please visit: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap