Hi Beria, Which motivation methods do you think work well? On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 12:19 PM, Béria Lima <beria.lima(a)wikimedia.pt> wrote: -- John Vandenberg

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.

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_thes… *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_ed… 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_participants_feel_they_have_been_assaulted.2C_attacked.2C_or_treated_poorly_by_colleagues_on_projects.3F 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: -- *Sarah Stierch* */Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow/* <https://donate.wikimedia.org/><<

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: {{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.) -- Michael J. "Orange Mike" Lowrey "When I get a little money I buy books; and if any is left, I buy food and clothes."      --  Desiderius Erasmus

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 7:40 PM, Michael J. Lowrey &lt;orangemike(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: 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.

On Thu, May 31, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Sarah Stierch &lt;sarah.stierch(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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

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 &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 On 31 May 2012 20:28, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 31 May 2012 21:07, Andreas Kolbe &lt;jayen466(a)gmail.com&gt; 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

+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 &lt;risker.wp(a)gmail.com&gt; 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

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