What research is needed?
We have academics across the world who want to do research on Wikimedia.
What questions can we put to the researchers in order to obtain a better understanding of
* why women don't contribute? * what would help them contribute? * other?
-- John Vandenberg
I think that better than ask why people don't contribute, is better tell them why SHOULD they? For us is easier to pass by the fact that not everyone knows why they should contribute. We should give they as much info as possible to make them a contributor, not asking why they don't do it.
Contribution is almost always a question of motivation, if you don't motivate people to do it, they simply won't. _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 30 May 2012 18:47, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
What research is needed?
We have academics across the world who want to do research on Wikimedia.
What questions can we put to the researchers in order to obtain a better understanding of
- why women don't contribute?
- what would help them contribute?
- other?
-- John Vandenberg
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi Beria,
Which motivation methods do you think work well?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
I think that better than ask why people don't contribute, is better tell them why SHOULD they? For us is easier to pass by the fact that not everyone knows why they should contribute. We should give they as much info as possible to make them a contributor, not asking why they don't do it.
Contribution is almost always a question of motivation, if you don't motivate people to do it, they simply won't. _____ Béria Lima
Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.
On 30 May 2012 18:47, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
What research is needed?
We have academics across the world who want to do research on Wikimedia.
What questions can we put to the researchers in order to obtain a better understanding of
- why women don't contribute?
- what would help them contribute?
- other?
-- John Vandenberg
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
While I won't comment on what motivation methods *I* think would work well, I think it is a topic that has potential as the subject of academic research.
It is just as important to know why people choose to do something as it is to know why they choose not to do the same thing.
Risker/Anne
On 31 May 2012 01:19, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Beria,
Which motivation methods do you think work well?
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
I think that better than ask why people don't contribute, is better tell them why SHOULD they? For us is easier to pass by the fact that not
everyone
knows why they should contribute. We should give they as much info as possible to make them a contributor, not asking why they don't do it.
Contribution is almost always a question of motivation, if you don't motivate people to do it, they simply won't. _____ Béria Lima
Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter
livre
acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho.
On 30 May 2012 18:47, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
What research is needed?
We have academics across the world who want to do research on Wikimedia.
What questions can we put to the researchers in order to obtain a better understanding of
- why women don't contribute?
- what would help them contribute?
- other?
-- John Vandenberg
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
-- John Vandenberg
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
What I'd like to see, and what I don't think has been done before, is a survey of editors as they are editing. By that I mean, when someone saves an edit, a box asks them "What was the purpose of your edit? What made you decide to make this edit? If it was to correct an error, how were you alerted to the error? Do you have specific expertise in the topic of this article? Are you male, female or decline to respond?" etc. etc. It could be done alone, or in conjunction with a broader opt-in survey, but I think it would capture some really interesting and useful results.
On 5/30/12 7:19 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
I think that better than ask why people don't contribute, is better tell them why SHOULD they? For us is easier to pass by the fact that not everyone knows why they should contribute. We should give they as much info as possible to make them a contributor, not asking why they don't do it.
Contribution is almost always a question of motivation, if you don't motivate people to do it, they simply won't.
I think this is a good point. One of the most surprising results from our editor surveys was large disparity between the importance that men assign to editing Wikipedia and the importance that women assign to it. (A significantly higher percentage of men said they edit Wikipedia because it is important.) How is it possible that men and women view the importance of the exact same activity in dramatically different ways? I have a lot of theories, but I'd love to see more research into this.
Ryan Kaldari
When I did my oh so not scientific survey about women who edit Wikipedia last year (and it was not an official WMF survey, this was just done by me, a concerned editor, and the process has changed since then, so don't plan on doing your own without going through WMF research processes, now) this is what I discovered from women who had edited Wikipedia within the past year (up to that point in 2011):
*83% of respondents started participating because they like the idea of volunteering to share their knowledge and/or wanted to share their knowledge with a larger audience. * You can learn more about that here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Wikimedia_Survey_2011#Why_did_these...
*Why do most people continue to edit? *
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Wikimedia_Survey_2011#Why_do_these_... * Every respondent said they liked volunteering and that they found it empowering. * It's common knowledge amongst those involved in non-profit work that women devote more time to non-profit volunteering then men. How can we tap into that and let women know that they are contributing to a non-profit that has an international impact?
I asked why people /stop/ contributing (and this survey did include some women who stopped editing perhaps in that one year period):
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Wikimedia_Survey_2011#Sometimes_edi...
Usually it's because they are busy. The smallest group - 2% said because of sexualized environments on wiki spaces. Which has led me to believe in the red herring theory about porn and Wikipedia. I think it's concerning about model contracts and so forth, but, I think we have bigger fish to fry at this point. I think it's sexualized language and behavior that we need to be more concerned about - sexist comments and bad manners. (and of course, sexism can be experienced by people of any gender and has on Wikipedia.) But, that relies on culture change and allies within the community to shoot down behavior like that (civility!).
*58% of participants said they had never been assaulted, attacked or been treated poorly by their Wikipedia colleagues. 33 percent said yes. *http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Women_and_Wikimedia_Survey_2011#Do_survey_par...
I did this survey because I wanted to know why women were editing. Not why women weren't. I took this as a sign that I needed to develop some sort of call for action, which encourages women to participate (something I am working on that is not yet public for my fellowship) that doesn't involve extensive time consumption at times, that the environment is probably worse for women who do find that sexualized content because they are looking at that content (duh, I'm going to find porny stuff when I search for doggy style or whatever or when i search for "cucumber" on commons because I know where to look. Most people who use Commons know that it's mainly used by Wikipedians, no one else - pregnancy is one prime recent example, but, that's one article out of 3 million+ on English wikipedia), and so I'd channel my energy into actions.
I still wholeheartedly believe that call for actions, making tasks simpler and easier to participate in, inviting women to participate online and offline, social activities and friendly easy to understand content is going to help. (and help people of all genders participate - so far the Teahouse is helping retain editors, and that includes a large percentage of women who have came through the Teahouse, but how do we make it more known to more women?)
My opinion has come down to: stop searching, and start taking actions. Not all actions might succeed, but, it's up to us to find that out.
Stop bitching and start a revolution, as the old adage says :)
-Sarah
On 5/31/12 10:37 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
On 5/30/12 7:19 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
I think that better than ask why people don't contribute, is better tell them why SHOULD they? For us is easier to pass by the fact that not everyone knows why they should contribute. We should give they as much info as possible to make them a contributor, not asking why they don't do it.
Contribution is almost always a question of motivation, if you don't motivate people to do it, they simply won't.
I think this is a good point. One of the most surprising results from our editor surveys was large disparity between the importance that men assign to editing Wikipedia and the importance that women assign to it. (A significantly higher percentage of men said they edit Wikipedia because it is important.) How is it possible that men and women view the importance of the exact same activity in dramatically different ways? I have a lot of theories, but I'd love to see more research into this.
Ryan Kaldari
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 6:54 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
Usually it's because they are busy. The smallest group - 2% said because of sexualized environments on wiki spaces. Which has led me to believe in the red herring theory about porn and Wikipedia. I think it's concerning about model contracts and so forth, but, I think we have bigger fish to fry at this point. I think it's sexualized language and behavior that we need to be more concerned about - sexist comments and bad manners. (and of course, sexism can be experienced by people of any gender and has on Wikipedia.) But, that relies on culture change and allies within the community to shoot down behavior like that (civility!).
Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between the let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe as "sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners".
The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely
– to attract people who engage in "sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners", and – to repel the type of people who would be "allies within the community to shoot down behaviour like that (civility!)".
A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to repel the first and attract the second type of contributor.
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between the let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe as "sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners".
The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely
– to attract people who engage in "sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners", and – to repel the type of people who would be "allies within the community to shoot down behaviour like that (civility!)".
A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to repel the first and attract the second type of contributor.
{{citation needed}}
Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}!
(I won't bother to ask for an apology.)
On May 31, 2012, at 11:40 AM, Michael J. Lowrey wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between the let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe as "sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners".
The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely
– to attract people who engage in "sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners", and – to repel the type of people who would be "allies within the community to shoot down behaviour like that (civility!)".
A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to repel the first and attract the second type of contributor.
{{citation needed}}
Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}!
Too commonly on Wikimedia projects, the following two positions are conflated:
(1) Concern about the ratio of content (e.g. the number of one kind of photo vs. another kind of photo) or the social dynamics around editing (2) Willingness to engage in censorship
The two are simply not the same. To have a concern (like 1) is not to endorse one specific course of action (like 2). Offhand, I can't think of any actively engaged Wikipedian who has ever seriously endorsed censorship in our projects.
In general, within our projects and mailing lists, I'd like to see less inflammatory rhetoric based on this kind of conflation. I don't think it advances the discussion to label people as supporting censorship, when they have done no such thing.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Michael J. Lowrey orangemike@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between
the
let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe
as
"sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners".
The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely
– to attract people who engage in "sexualized behavior – sexist comments
and
bad manners", and – to repel the type of people who would be "allies within the community
to
shoot down behaviour like that (civility!)".
A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to repel the first and attract the second type of contributor.
{{citation needed}}
Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}!
(I won't bother to ask for an apology.)
I'll work on a citation. But in my experience, the places that are most radically free speech, and most anti-censorship when it comes to porn, like parts of 4chan and reddit, are also places where the level of discourse goes way south. I don't think that is a particularly novel or contentious observation.
The screenshots below are from a blog post by a girl geek going onto 4chan /b/.
http://boards.4chan.org/b/ (probably NSFW)
4chan is the site that gave Wikipedia and the world its lolcats, as well as the saying, "There are no girls on the Internet." As you'll no doubt see if you navigate to the above address, it is also full of anonymously posted girlie pictures, not unlike parts of Wikimedia. One of the board's catchphrases is, "Tits or GTFO". Rather male-centric, right?
The Wikipedia article on 4chan is a featured article. (Why am I not surprised ...)
The following screenshots are SFW:
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur... http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur... http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur... http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur...
The following is the dialogue they show:
---o0o---
/b/abes get no love! I hate you, /b/. Where are the female /b/tards?
in the kitchen.
stop making these shit threads ... girls on /b/ are anon, and stay anon.
i lol'd go make me a fucking sandwich
If girls on /b/ are non and stay anon, why is anon assumed to be male by default? Can we just purge all the cam whores, plz?
making me a god damn sammwich
make my sandwich silently
im a girl,im in florida
Tits or GTFO. Pic related.
Girls on the Internet don't fucking exist.
girl, why do you have a pc in the kitchen?
female /b/tard here, trolling threads and not making samiches
Oh silly, there are no girls on the internet
---o0o---
Now, this dialogue illustrates how anonymous uncensored porn and sexist behaviour towards a woman can go together, and reinforce each other.
The blog post the screenshots are taken from is here:
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/elisaverna/wait-did-4chan-just-en...
Andreas
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Michael J. Lowrey orangemike@gmail.comwrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between
the
let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe
as
"sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners".
The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely
– to attract people who engage in "sexualized behavior – sexist
comments and
bad manners", and – to repel the type of people who would be "allies within the community
to
shoot down behaviour like that (civility!)".
A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to repel the first and attract the second type of contributor.
{{citation needed}}
Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}!
(I won't bother to ask for an apology.)
I'll work on a citation. But in my experience, the places that are most radically free speech, and most anti-censorship when it comes to porn, like parts of 4chan and reddit, are also places where the level of discourse goes way south. I don't think that is a particularly novel or contentious observation.
Now, this dialogue illustrates how anonymous uncensored porn and sexist behaviour towards a woman can go together, and reinforce each other.
The blog post the screenshots are taken from is here:
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/elisaverna/wait-did-4chan-just-en...
Did we just read the same blog post. Because I'm fairly sure that is not what she said.
(and indeed I found the post insightful, refreshing and important)
Tom
Andreas,
ffs can we have one thread where we don't talk about porn. Or if you do think porn is a part of the gendergap, pose research questions which will help test your hypothesis, because that is what this thread is about.
I want research questions I can put to real academics. Not bullshit hand-wavey assertions even if they are backed up by a 'citation'.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
The screenshots below are from a blog post by a girl geek going onto 4chan /b/.
http://boards.4chan.org/b/%C2%A0(probably NSFW)
4chan is the site that gave Wikipedia and the world its lolcats, as well as the saying, "There are no girls on the Internet." As you'll no doubt see if you navigate to the above address, it is also full of anonymously posted girlie pictures, not unlike parts of Wikimedia. One of the board's catchphrases is, "Tits or GTFO". Rather male-centric, right?
The Wikipedia article on 4chan is a featured article. (Why am I not surprised ...)
The following screenshots are SFW:
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur... http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur... http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur... http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur...
The following is the dialogue they show:
---o0o---
/b/abes get no love! I hate you, /b/. Where are the female /b/tards?
in the kitchen.
stop making these shit threads ... girls on /b/ are anon, and stay anon.
i lol'd go make me a fucking sandwich
If girls on /b/ are non and stay anon, why is anon assumed to be male by default? Can we just purge all the cam whores, plz?
making me a god damn sammwich
make my sandwich silently
im a girl,im in florida
Tits or GTFO. Pic related.
Girls on the Internet don't fucking exist.
girl, why do you have a pc in the kitchen?
female /b/tard here, trolling threads and not making samiches
Oh silly, there are no girls on the internet
---o0o---
Now, this dialogue illustrates how anonymous uncensored porn and sexist behaviour towards a woman can go together, and reinforce each other.
The blog post the screenshots are taken from is here:
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/elisaverna/wait-did-4chan-just-en...
Andreas
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Michael J. Lowrey orangemike@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation between the let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you describe as "sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners".
The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely
– to attract people who engage in "sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners", and – to repel the type of people who would be "allies within the community to shoot down behaviour like that (civility!)".
A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to repel the first and attract the second type of contributor.
{{citation needed}}
Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}!
(I won't bother to ask for an apology.)
I'll work on a citation. But in my experience, the places that are most radically free speech, and most anti-censorship when it comes to porn, like parts of 4chan and reddit, are also places where the level of discourse goes way south. I don't think that is a particularly novel or contentious observation.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
John,
Fine. Here's some research ideas for you:
1. Collect (or analyse existing) demographic data about the proportion of
- single males/females - males/females in a relationship - married males/females
- males/females with children - childless males/females
within the contributor populations of different Internet sites – from 4chan to Wikimedia to Reddit to Facebook to Twitter etc.
Make sure to include some sites like Pinterest that are predominantly female.
2. Rate visibility and in-your-face-ness of pornography, glamour shots and nudity-related discussions on each of these sites.
3. Determine overall female vs. male participation level on each site.
Analyse the data to see whether sites with high matter-of-course visibility of pornography, like 4chan, turn out to have the highest proportion of single childless males, e.g., and the lowest proportion of women contributors (married mothers, women in a relationship, single women, etc.).
Expressed as hypotheses:
Null hypothesis: There is no discernible statistical correlation between higher visibility of porn, a high proportion of single childless males in the site's population, and low female participation levels (random cloud in the scatter plots).
Alternative hypothesis: There is a discernible statistical correlation between higher visibility of porn, a higher proportion of single childless males, and low female participation levels (clear trend lines visible in the scatter plots).
Perform regression analysis, calculate confidence levels etc.
4. As a bonus, ask survey participants about their views of the different sites – what attracts or repels them, how various sites' attitudes to censorship, presence or absence of glamour shots and pornography, freedom to use abusive language, absence of abusive language etc. impact on their decision to participate or not.
If there are significant correlations in the data, and a higher proportion of non-single or married men and fathers is correlated with higher female participation levels, make clear to the community in which direction we have to move to change both male demographics, and attract more women.
Andreas
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:08 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas,
ffs can we have one thread where we don't talk about porn. Or if you do think porn is a part of the gendergap, pose research questions which will help test your hypothesis, because that is what this thread is about.
I want research questions I can put to real academics. Not bullshit hand-wavey assertions even if they are backed up by a 'citation'.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
The screenshots below are from a blog post by a girl geek going onto
4chan
/b/.
http://boards.4chan.org/b/ (probably NSFW)
4chan is the site that gave Wikipedia and the world its lolcats, as well
as
the saying, "There are no girls on the Internet." As you'll no doubt see
if
you navigate to the above address, it is also full of anonymously posted girlie pictures, not unlike parts of Wikimedia. One of the board's catchphrases is, "Tits or GTFO". Rather male-centric, right?
The Wikipedia article on 4chan is a featured article. (Why am I not surprised ...)
The following screenshots are SFW:
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur...
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur...
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur...
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur...
The following is the dialogue they show:
---o0o---
/b/abes get no love! I hate you, /b/. Where are the female /b/tards?
in the kitchen.
stop making these shit threads ... girls on /b/ are anon, and stay anon.
i lol'd go make me a fucking sandwich
If girls on /b/ are non and stay anon, why is anon assumed to be male by default? Can we just purge all the cam whores, plz?
making me a god damn sammwich
make my sandwich silently
im a girl,im in florida
Tits or GTFO. Pic related.
Girls on the Internet don't fucking exist.
girl, why do you have a pc in the kitchen?
female /b/tard here, trolling threads and not making samiches
Oh silly, there are no girls on the internet
---o0o---
Now, this dialogue illustrates how anonymous uncensored porn and sexist behaviour towards a woman can go together, and reinforce each other.
The blog post the screenshots are taken from is here:
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/elisaverna/wait-did-4chan-just-en...
Andreas
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Michael J. Lowrey <
orangemike@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation
between
the let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you
describe
as "sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners".
The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely
– to attract people who engage in "sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners", and – to repel the type of people who would be "allies within the
community
to shoot down behaviour like that (civility!)".
A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is apt to repel the first and attract the second type of contributor.
{{citation needed}}
Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}!
(I won't bother to ask for an apology.)
I'll work on a citation. But in my experience, the places that are most radically free speech, and most anti-censorship when it comes to porn,
like
parts of 4chan and reddit, are also places where the level of discourse
goes
way south. I don't think that is a particularly novel or contentious observation.
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
Andreas - you seem to have the belief that the pervasive exposure to pornography is having an adverse effect on community dynamics, and in particular is having a negative impact on the recruitment of women editors. Perhaps you might want to consider whether your pervasive discussions of pornography aren't having a similar effect.
This is a great way to kill a thread, when twice in the last few hours, members of this forum have striven to redirect threads from the topic of pornography.
Risker/Anne
On 31 May 2012 20:28, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
John,
Fine. Here's some research ideas for you:
- Collect (or analyse existing) demographic data about the proportion of
single males/females
males/females in a relationship
married males/females
males/females with children
childless males/females
within the contributor populations of different Internet sites – from 4chan to Wikimedia to Reddit to Facebook to Twitter etc.
Make sure to include some sites like Pinterest that are predominantly female.
- Rate visibility and in-your-face-ness of pornography, glamour shots and
nudity-related discussions on each of these sites.
- Determine overall female vs. male participation level on each site.
Analyse the data to see whether sites with high matter-of-course visibility of pornography, like 4chan, turn out to have the highest proportion of single childless males, e.g., and the lowest proportion of women contributors (married mothers, women in a relationship, single women, etc.).
Expressed as hypotheses:
Null hypothesis: There is no discernible statistical correlation between higher visibility of porn, a high proportion of single childless males in the site's population, and low female participation levels (random cloud in the scatter plots).
Alternative hypothesis: There is a discernible statistical correlation between higher visibility of porn, a higher proportion of single childless males, and low female participation levels (clear trend lines visible in the scatter plots).
Perform regression analysis, calculate confidence levels etc.
- As a bonus, ask survey participants about their views of the different
sites – what attracts or repels them, how various sites' attitudes to censorship, presence or absence of glamour shots and pornography, freedom to use abusive language, absence of abusive language etc. impact on their decision to participate or not.
If there are significant correlations in the data, and a higher proportion of non-single or married men and fathers is correlated with higher female participation levels, make clear to the community in which direction we have to move to change both male demographics, and attract more women.
Andreas
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:08 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.comwrote:
Andreas,
ffs can we have one thread where we don't talk about porn. Or if you do think porn is a part of the gendergap, pose research questions which will help test your hypothesis, because that is what this thread is about.
I want research questions I can put to real academics. Not bullshit hand-wavey assertions even if they are backed up by a 'citation'.
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 6:47 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
The screenshots below are from a blog post by a girl geek going onto
4chan
/b/.
http://boards.4chan.org/b/ (probably NSFW)
4chan is the site that gave Wikipedia and the world its lolcats, as
well as
the saying, "There are no girls on the Internet." As you'll no doubt
see if
you navigate to the above address, it is also full of anonymously posted girlie pictures, not unlike parts of Wikimedia. One of the board's catchphrases is, "Tits or GTFO". Rather male-centric, right?
The Wikipedia article on 4chan is a featured article. (Why am I not surprised ...)
The following screenshots are SFW:
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur...
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur...
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur...
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/Pictur...
The following is the dialogue they show:
---o0o---
/b/abes get no love! I hate you, /b/. Where are the female /b/tards?
in the kitchen.
stop making these shit threads ... girls on /b/ are anon, and stay anon.
i lol'd go make me a fucking sandwich
If girls on /b/ are non and stay anon, why is anon assumed to be male by default? Can we just purge all the cam whores, plz?
making me a god damn sammwich
make my sandwich silently
im a girl,im in florida
Tits or GTFO. Pic related.
Girls on the Internet don't fucking exist.
girl, why do you have a pc in the kitchen?
female /b/tard here, trolling threads and not making samiches
Oh silly, there are no girls on the internet
---o0o---
Now, this dialogue illustrates how anonymous uncensored porn and sexist behaviour towards a woman can go together, and reinforce each other.
The blog post the screenshots are taken from is here:
http://cultureandcommunication.org/f09/tdm/elisaverna/wait-did-4chan-just-en...
Andreas
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 8:33 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com
wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Michael J. Lowrey <
orangemike@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
Please consider the likelihood that there may be a correlation
between
the let-it-all-hang-out attitude towards porn, and the problem you
describe
as "sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners".
The let-it-all-hang-out approach towards porn is likely
– to attract people who engage in "sexualized behavior – sexist comments and bad manners", and – to repel the type of people who would be "allies within the
community
to shoot down behaviour like that (civility!)".
A more responsible and mainstream approach, on the other hand, is
apt
to repel the first and attract the second type of contributor.
{{citation needed}}
Unquestioned premises almost inevitably lead to false conclusions. In this case, the unquestioned premise is that those who oppose censorship are people who engage in (or at least tolerate) sexist comments and bad manners, as opposed to the possibility that those who people oppose censorship believe in opposing censorship as a matter of principle. You are unilaterally defining opponents of censorship as irresponsible, out of the mainstream, and unwilling to support civility: again I say, {{citation needed}}!
(I won't bother to ask for an apology.)
I'll work on a citation. But in my experience, the places that are most radically free speech, and most anti-censorship when it comes to porn,
like
parts of 4chan and reddit, are also places where the level of
discourse goes
way south. I don't think that is a particularly novel or contentious observation.
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas - you seem to have the belief that the pervasive exposure to pornography is having an adverse effect on community dynamics, and in particular is having a negative impact on the recruitment of women editors. Perhaps you might want to consider whether your pervasive discussions of pornography aren't having a similar effect.
This is a great way to kill a thread, when twice in the last few hours, members of this forum have striven to redirect threads from the topic of pornography.
Risker/Anne
Anne,
It is not about pervasive exposure to pornography at all. We have established – and all of us are in agreement on this point – that women generally are very rarely exposed to it in Wikipedia, unless they seek it out.
The problem is that the male culture that likes its pornography out there, and rails against any limitation of it, even a token one like an opt-in filter, concomitantly ALSO happens to be sexist and unwelcoming to women, which is again something at least the women here are largely agreed on.
Let's just leave it at that. Wikimedia has far and away the most pro-porn, anti-censorship/anti-filtering policy of any top-10 website. It also has the lowest female participation of all these 10 websites.
I believe that it is appalling, and I believe that these two facts are closely related: you are welcome to disagree.
Andreas
On 31 May 2012 21:07, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas - you seem to have the belief that the pervasive exposure to pornography is having an adverse effect on community dynamics, and in particular is having a negative impact on the recruitment of women editors. Perhaps you might want to consider whether your pervasive discussions of pornography aren't having a similar effect.
This is a great way to kill a thread, when twice in the last few hours, members of this forum have striven to redirect threads from the topic of pornography.
Risker/Anne
Anne,
It is not about pervasive exposure to pornography at all. We have established – and all of us are in agreement on this point – that women generally are very rarely exposed to it in Wikipedia, unless they seek it out.
The problem is that the male culture that likes its pornography out there, and rails against any limitation of it, even a token one like an opt-in filter, concomitantly ALSO happens to be sexist and unwelcoming to women, which is again something at least the women here are largely agreed on.
Let's just leave it at that. Wikimedia has far and away the most pro-porn, anti-censorship/anti-filtering policy of any top-10 website. It also has the lowest female participation of all these 10 websites.
I believe that it is appalling, and I believe that these two facts are closely related: you are welcome to disagree.
I'm not disagreeing with you, Andreas. I'm saying that I'd really prefer not to find that just about every thread on the gendergap list wasn't discussing pornography in some way. If you think the culture that pornography creates on the project is harmful and is directly related to the low participation of women on the project, then why do you feel it's a good thing to perpetuate it on this list by constantly discussing it? I suggest to you that distilling the gendergap issue down to "pro-porn culture" when participants in the WikiWomen camp don't even rate this issue in its top 10, and the majority of women participating in discussion over the last few days are saying that it might be an issue but it's not the big issue, is pretty much a classic example of shouting over the voices of women who disagree with your focus. Please think about that for a bit.
Risker/Anne
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 9:35 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I'm not disagreeing with you, Andreas. I'm saying that I'd really prefer not to find that just about every thread on the gendergap list wasn't discussing pornography in some way. If you think the culture that pornography creates on the project is harmful and is directly related to the low participation of women on the project, then why do you feel it's a good thing to perpetuate it on this list by constantly discussing it? I suggest to you that distilling the gendergap issue down to "pro-porn culture" when participants in the WikiWomen camp don't even rate this issue in its top 10, and the majority of women participating in discussion over the last few days are saying that it might be an issue but it's not the big issue, is pretty much a classic example of shouting over the voices of women who disagree with your focus. Please think about that for a bit.
Risker/Anne
I agree with the desire to talk about something else for awhile, but for what it's worth... It's been my observation that it's common, even extremely common, for Wikimedia mailing lists (and mailing lists in general) to fixate on a single or small number of topics for awhile before moving on to something else. Let's not treat this as though weeks or months of discussion had been sidetracked to pornography; it's been a few threads for a few days, and these threads have drawn far more posts than the typical topics on this list. It's also in the nature of e-mail that anyone disinterested in the controversial nexus of Wikimedia and sexuality could ignore these posts and reply to their hearts content on other topics.
Nathan
- I suggest to you that distilling the gendergap issue down to "pro-porn
culture" when participants in the WikiWomen camp don't even rate this issue in its top 10, and the majority of women participating in discussion over the last few days are saying that it might be an issue but it's not the big issue, is pretty much a classic example of shouting over the voices of women who disagree with your focus.
+1
And for what its worth, WWC girls have no problem discussing sex, porn or male genitalia (we did spend more than 20 min laughing about the lies that europeans tell in studies like the one who originate this: http://alphadesigner.com/blog/europe-according-penis-size/ (which clearly states that French and Hungarians like to tell big fat lies ;) ) and the people who can peform autocoitus. So isn't that big of a issue. (and the map also shows that :-D ) _____ *Béria Lima*
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 31 May 2012 22:35, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 31 May 2012 21:07, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:47 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Andreas - you seem to have the belief that the pervasive exposure to pornography is having an adverse effect on community dynamics, and in particular is having a negative impact on the recruitment of women editors. Perhaps you might want to consider whether your pervasive discussions of pornography aren't having a similar effect.
This is a great way to kill a thread, when twice in the last few hours, members of this forum have striven to redirect threads from the topic of pornography.
Risker/Anne
Anne,
It is not about pervasive exposure to pornography at all. We have established – and all of us are in agreement on this point – that women generally are very rarely exposed to it in Wikipedia, unless they seek it out.
The problem is that the male culture that likes its pornography out there, and rails against any limitation of it, even a token one like an opt-in filter, concomitantly ALSO happens to be sexist and unwelcoming to women, which is again something at least the women here are largely agreed on.
Let's just leave it at that. Wikimedia has far and away the most pro-porn, anti-censorship/anti-filtering policy of any top-10 website. It also has the lowest female participation of all these 10 websites.
I believe that it is appalling, and I believe that these two facts are closely related: you are welcome to disagree.
I'm not disagreeing with you, Andreas. I'm saying that I'd really prefer not to find that just about every thread on the gendergap list wasn't discussing pornography in some way. If you think the culture that pornography creates on the project is harmful and is directly related to the low participation of women on the project, then why do you feel it's a good thing to perpetuate it on this list by constantly discussing it? I suggest to you that distilling the gendergap issue down to "pro-porn culture" when participants in the WikiWomen camp don't even rate this issue in its top 10, and the majority of women participating in discussion over the last few days are saying that it might be an issue but it's not the big issue, is pretty much a classic example of shouting over the voices of women who disagree with your focus. Please think about that for a bit.
Risker/Anne
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Fri, Jun 1, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
- I suggest to you that distilling the gendergap issue down to "pro-porn
culture" when participants in the WikiWomen camp don't even rate this issue in its top 10, and the majority of women participating in discussion over the last few days are saying that it might be an issue but it's not the big issue, is pretty much a classic example of shouting over the voices of women who disagree with your focus.
+1
And for what its worth, WWC girls have no problem discussing sex, porn or male genitalia (we did spend more than 20 min laughing about the lies that europeans tell in studies like the one who originate this: http://alphadesigner.com/blog/europe-according-penis-size/ (which clearly states that French and Hungarians like to tell big fat lies ;) ) and the people who can peform autocoitus. So isn't that big of a issue. (and the map also shows that :-D )
+2 . I'd really like to blank those two pictures out of my brain forever. Curiosity is an evil thing, What session was that where we derailed it by talking about those things? Was it the methodology one?
Anyway, on our reasons why we felt women did not contribute, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikiWomenCamp_day_1_by_Laura_Hale_%28... my group's mind map. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:WikiWomenCamp_day_1_068.jpg was the big group reasons.
Our group broadly categorised why women did not participate as: Personal, Environmental, Community. One group discussed low self esteem and lack of confidence, cultural conditioning to not question authority in the same way as another perspective. There were discussions about how different groups of women had different reasons why they did not participate. A woman in a rural area with less of an education is going to have different reasons for non-participation than a highly educated woman in an urban setting.
At one point, we discussed why women edit and why we continue to edit despite all the crap we have to deal with. I think ultimately this boiled down to the following: 1. We are bossy and stubborn. 2. We think what we're contributing matters and is important for a variety of reasons. (Almost none of which were "Knowledge should be free.") 3. Some of us come from cultures with a built in expectation that we will do work for free.
Lots of consensus that many of the issues as to why women do not contribute could be overcome IF we could correctly tap into motivation.
Another view was if we word the negative reasons why women would contribute, women come off badly. Women would contribute if only the interface was simple enough for them to use.
Sincerely, Laura Hale
John, I'd be interested in research on why women who do take the leap of faith and edit, ultimately withdraw. Perhaps, as well, what issues that currently editing women would consider serious enough to withdraw from the project.
I know this is more along the lines of editor retention than editor recruitment, but I think it might be revealing.
Risker/Anne
Risker, agree with all three of your ideas.
Q: Has any research been done re why people who grew up as girls take the leap of faith at all, in which way they arm themselves and what makes them stay on and remain active?
my guess is that the official stats about the participation of "women" and "men" as editors or otherwise are inaccurate (to say the least), and maybe simply wrong for lack of the right data. For a short explanation of my doubts please refer to the passage on "what stats hide" here: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2012-May/002625.html
Claudia
On Fri, 1 Jun 2012 21:09:30 -0400, Risker wrote
John, I'd be interested in research on why women who do take the leap of faith and edit, ultimately withdraw. Perhaps, as well, what issues that currently editing women would consider serious enough to withdraw from the project.
I know this is more along the lines of editor retention than editor recruitment, but I think it might be revealing.
Risker/Anne
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
... I think it's concerning about model contracts and so forth, but, I think we have bigger fish to fry at this point. ...
Hi Sarah, I see your point, but I think the model releases are a major issue for us. As I look at it, women *are" involved extensively in Wikimedia, but a big percentage of that involvement comes in the form of being portrayed naked on Commons. This is very troubling to me. If in addition it's being done without their consent, then it's something I really wish we could act on, regardless of the legal requirements.
Sarah
I agree!
Pete, Kaldari and others have fought the good fight about that. I think some Things were developed on Commons and we tried to get more folks involved to no avail. I can't provide links this second.
I tried my best with model releases (I worked in fashion and photography before I was a Wikipedian and curator!) but little has seemed to come from it and as alway - I encourage people to get involved in curating commons of non-educational content. More voices means more content control.
I had to shift my focus to focus on bringing more women to Wikipedia, which I hope leads to more curating of content. Don't get me wrong - I think his very Important!!
Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
On May 31, 2012, at 1:44 PM, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
... I think it's concerning about model contracts and so forth, but, I think we have bigger fish to fry at this point. ...
Hi Sarah, I see your point, but I think the model releases are a major issue for us. As I look at it, women *are" involved extensively in Wikimedia, but a big percentage of that involvement comes in the form of being portrayed naked on Commons. This is very troubling to me. If in addition it's being done without their consent, then it's something I really wish we could act on, regardless of the legal requirements.
Sarah
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On May 31, 2012, at 10:37 AM, Ryan Kaldari wrote:
On 5/30/12 7:19 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
I think that better than ask why people don't contribute, is better tell them why SHOULD they? For us is easier to pass by the fact that not everyone knows why they should contribute. We should give they as much info as possible to make them a contributor, not asking why they don't do it.
Contribution is almost always a question of motivation, if you don't motivate people to do it, they simply won't.
I think this is a good point. One of the most surprising results from our editor surveys was large disparity between the importance that men assign to editing Wikipedia and the importance that women assign to it. (A significantly higher percentage of men said they edit Wikipedia because it is important.) How is it possible that men and women view the importance of the exact same activity in dramatically different ways? I have a lot of theories, but I'd love to see more research into this.
Ryan Kaldari
Just want to be sure this makes it in -- it's not a gender-related study, but Ed Chi's research is probably the most directly relevant inquiry I've seen, into what motivates people to edit Wikipedia. See here: http://www.quora.com/What-motivates-people-to-contribute-to-Wikipedia/answer...
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
* John Vandenberg wrote:
What research is needed?
We have academics across the world who want to do research on Wikimedia.
What questions can we put to the researchers in order to obtain a better understanding of
- why women don't contribute?
- what would help them contribute?
- other?
http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2011-December/002134.html