After editing many years at Wikipedia, I think the most problematic aspect of the system is that all user guidelines are on behavior. If you have a problem editor who stays within the rules, they can and will keep going and going on content issues till they win. And unless they break some behavior rule, this can go on forever, especially in controversial areas. What I want to say here is that man generally are far more likely to keep pushinga dn pushing till they have their way content wise.
If we are serious about fixing this issue, the focus needs to shift from behavior to content. I am not going to hit the hottest button of all, but we need a way to reign in content warriors by providing a way to resolve content disputes without having to wait till one of the parties violates a behavioral policy. By the time they start violating those, most women have left already.
Do others share this observation?
Kim
Please take a look at this thread:
Discussion "duels" and "wall arguments".
Miguel Ángel
----------------------------------------------------------------------- Estimado Kim,
Con fecha jueves, 10 de febrero de 2011, 19:24:45, escribió:
After editing many years at Wikipedia, I think the most problematic aspect of the system is that all user guidelines are on behavior. If you have a problem editor who stays within the rules, they can and will keep going and going on content issues till they win. And unless they break some behavior rule, this can go on forever, especially in controversial areas. What I want to say here is that man generally are far more likely to keep pushinga dn pushing till they have their way content wise.
If we are serious about fixing this issue, the focus needs to shift from behavior to content. I am not going to hit the hottest button of all, but we need a way to reign in content warriors by providing a way to resolve content disputes without having to wait till one of the parties violates a behavioral policy. By the time they start violating those, most women have left already.
Do others share this observation?
Kim
--- On Thu, 10/2/11, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
From: Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com
<snip>
What I want to say here is that man generally are far more likely to keep pushinga dn pushing till they have their way content wise.
If we are serious about fixing this issue, the focus needs to shift from behavior to content. I am not going to hit the hottest button of all, but we need a way to reign in content warriors by providing a way to resolve content disputes without having to wait till one of the parties violates a behavioral policy. By the time they start violating those, most women have left already.
Do others share this observation?
I am not sure men drop out of contentious discussions at a lower rate than women. There are more men to begin with; it may be that the men who drop away leave less visible gaps. Some of the most tenacious and most highly respected editors I've met in Wikimedia projects have been women.
Andreas
One way of doing this might be a simple one - pushing awareness of the Mediation Committee. Right now, people seem to go to ArbCom and ArbCom only, when there's a similar body for content disputes.
On anthere's point, this could be the case. One of our problems here is the lack of information - of the people who leave, what percentage are women? Is it *specifically* women driven off, or a greater proportion of women than men? We need to find some way of answering these questions.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 8:04 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
--- On Thu, 10/2/11, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com wrote:
From: Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.com
<snip> > What I want to say here is that man generally are > far more likely > to keep pushinga dn pushing till they have their way > content wise. > > If we are serious about fixing this issue, the focus needs > to shift from > behavior to content. I am not going to hit the hottest > button of all, > but we need a way to reign in content warriors by providing > a way to > resolve content disputes without having to wait till one of > the parties > violates a behavioral policy. By the time they start > violating those, > most women have left already. > > Do others share this observation?
I am not sure men drop out of contentious discussions at a lower rate than women. There are more men to begin with; it may be that the men who drop away leave less visible gaps. Some of the most tenacious and most highly respected editors I've met in Wikimedia projects have been women.
Andreas
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
After editing many years at Wikipedia, I think the most problematic aspect of the system is that all user guidelines are on behavior. If you have a problem editor who stays within the rules, they can and will keep going and going on content issues till they win. And unless they break some behavior rule, this can go on forever, especially in controversial areas. What I want to say here is that man generally are far more likely to keep pushinga dn pushing till they have their way content wise.
If we are serious about fixing this issue, the focus needs to shift from behavior to content. I am not going to hit the hottest button of all, but we need a way to reign in content warriors by providing a way to resolve content disputes without having to wait till one of the parties violates a behavioral policy. By the time they start violating those, most women have left already.
Do others share this observation?
Kim
Although all "successful" (nearly all are eventually banned) edit warriors I have encountered on Wikipedia have apparently been male, I don't believe there is empirical support for your hypothesis. Observations in real life, such as observations of females engaged in politics and law do not support it, at least as something that is generally true and could be depended on.
With respect to the question of whether questions of content should be subject to dispute resolution, while in my opinion not gender related, I believe you are correct despite the great difficulties involved.
Fred
On 2/10/2011 4:00 PM, Fred Bauder wrote:
Although all "successful" (nearly all are eventually banned) edit warriors I have encountered on Wikipedia have apparently been male, I don't believe there is empirical support for your hypothesis. Observations in real life, such as observations of females engaged in politics and law do not support it, at least as something that is generally true and could be depended on.
Well, let me say it this way. I am regularly taking time of from Wikipedia because of petty content disputes. Like whether 9000 out of 21000 news articles mentioning that the organization is conservative is sufficient to add it to the lead of the article, and whether that absolutely should be balanced with the only 2 mentions out of 17,000 news articles that can be found mentioning that the other organization is liberal. This kind of petty POV pushing is so childish. And sorry, but this is something man do far more often than women and I have seen sufficient woman just leave after two or three rounds of rule bending stubbornness.
I think the way to get a feel on the WHY are women not at wikipedia is to have a survey asking women why they have left. There is just one question to be asked: "Have you or would you like to edit Wikipedia, and if so, why not /not anymore?"
Kim
"Well, let me say it this way. I am regularly taking time of from Wikipedia because of petty content disputes. Like whether 9000 out of 21000 news articles mentioning that the organization is conservative is sufficient to add it to the lead of the article, and whether that absolutely should be balanced with the only 2 mentions out of 17,000 news articles that can be found mentioning that the other organization is liberal. This kind of petty POV pushing is so childish. And sorry, but this is something man do far more often than women and I have seen sufficient woman just leave after two or three rounds of rule bending stubbornness."
So, petty, childish POV-pushing is something men do more than women. Is there any actual statistical evidence of this? Aren't we here precisely * because* the number of women on Wikipedia is statistically tiny? I'm sure you do encounter women doing it on WP more than men. That might be something to do with the fact that there are far more men here *than* women. Is there any way we could try to think of a solution which doesn't involve gender stereotypes - or at least, if we're going to involve stereotypes, provide evidence stronger than "well, it's happened to me"?
I have seen over last 10 days a lot of challenging and denial of women's experience here, which I don't think is helpful for coming up with solutions.
As others have said, a next step for the foundation may be to do a study of why women leave wikipedia (either as newbies or experienced users) and a number of reasons have been given here from individual womens' experience which might help create a check box format. (With "other" being give lots of room.)
Some examples may represent the experience of 40%, some of only 3%. But if women are going to be challenged every time they discuss a problem they've had, it's going to make it pretty hard to get them to say much else here or to encourage them to help forward the project of getting more women involved.
So think before you write.
Thanks! Carol in dc
On 2/10/2011 4:42 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
So, petty, childish POV-pushing is something men do more than women.
Yes, that is my experience.
Is there any actual statistical evidence of this?
I already suggested we do a survey to get a feel for the actual numbers.
Aren't we here precisely /because/ the number of women on Wikipedia is statistically tiny?
Yes, but that does not make my experience invalid.
I'm sure you do encounter women doing it on WP more than men.
Yes, and that are generally the few women who persevere at WP.
That might be something to do with the fact that there are far more men here /than/ women. Is there any way we could try to think of a solution which doesn't involve gender stereotypes - or at least, if we're going to involve stereotypes, provide evidence stronger than "well, it's happened to me"?
The blunt reality of gender stereotypes is that they actually exist when looking at whole populations. if we want generic solutions, we are going to fail hard. What we need to know is why women and men leave wikipedia. And I dare to bet on it that the gender steryotypes will rank high in that list. So, aAs I indicated above and earlier, we should do a survey among women and men who left WP and ask them "WHY DID YOU LEAVE?"
Kim
To add, it won't be difficult to find all the women that have not edited for the say last 3 months and send them an e-mail if they have one on the system.
Kim
On 2/10/2011 6:30 PM, Kim van der Linde wrote:
On 2/10/2011 4:42 PM, Oliver Keyes wrote:
So, petty, childish POV-pushing is something men do more than women.
Yes, that is my experience.
Is there any actual statistical evidence of this?
I already suggested we do a survey to get a feel for the actual numbers.
Aren't we here precisely /because/ the number of women on Wikipedia is statistically tiny?
Yes, but that does not make my experience invalid.
I'm sure you do encounter women doing it on WP more than men.
Yes, and that are generally the few women who persevere at WP.
That might be something to do with the fact that there are far more men here /than/ women. Is there any way we could try to think of a solution which doesn't involve gender stereotypes - or at least, if we're going to involve stereotypes, provide evidence stronger than "well, it's happened to me"?
The blunt reality of gender stereotypes is that they actually exist when looking at whole populations. if we want generic solutions, we are going to fail hard. What we need to know is why women and men leave wikipedia. And I dare to bet on it that the gender steryotypes will rank high in that list. So, aAs I indicated above and earlier, we should do a survey among women and men who left WP and ask them "WHY DID YOU LEAVE?"
Kim
Well, I'd suggest emailing the same range of retired editors as was targeted in the WMF study last year - that way we have a decent comparison between women-only reasons for retirement, and the "gen pop" reasons.
On Thu, Feb 10, 2011 at 11:48 PM, Kim van der Linde kim@kimvdlinde.comwrote:
To add, it won't be difficult to find all the women that have not edited for the say last 3 months and send them an e-mail if they have one on the system.
When this list was started, there was a Chica who said she lived right outside NY,. However, I would appreciate it if any NY chic reaches out to me.
I have a friend who works at an web org that has a high percentage of females - and have a speaker series. She said we could prob present there and recommended many hacker spaces in the area that we could present as well (she is a programmer)
So looking for a bunch of NY chicas to organize a presentation. And don't be nervous about public speaking - I am so loud and bicultural that I usually do something to soak up all the embarrassment of the group. Lololl I also promise that you have to do anything u don't want to do...but for this to work, we need a robust group.
Come on NY chicas!! Let's focus on solidarity and empower others together!!! So contact me!!
Now!! Hit reply -!! Lolol come on!! We can be like a female version of transformers, and we combine our strengths, we can sing (insert transformer melody) "wiki chicas, more than meets the eyes. Wiki chicas, awesome robettes who gets females to share knowledge." Lololol
Okay i promise not to be corny - but let's get together!!!
Sandy
Sent from my iPhone
On Feb 11, 2011, at 4:37 AM, Oliver Keyes scire.facias@gmail.com wrote: