Just a reminder that http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_more_female_editors implies the following outstanding questions:
Do the four peer reviewed secondary sources excerpted on http://en.wikiversity.org/wiki/Role_models imply that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_role_models should be created?
Should the Foundation ask chapters to try to encourage women to run for Wikipedia administrator positions?
Can the librarians on http://elementarylibraryroutines.wikispaces.com/Elementary+Librarians+on+Twi... help encourage more female editors?
I'm also wondering how the New York Chapter's attempt to engage the Girl Scouts of America has been going.
Best regards, James Salsman
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/06/10/wikipedia-editors-do-it-for-fun-first-r...
Also, interesting statistics on ages, with 30 plus almost as large as 12-29 year olds.
Plus this note:
As has been discussed recently, it is an important priority for the Wikimedia movement to progressively add diversity to our community. We have set targets http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Summary in our strategy http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page for greater participation of women and for rapid growth in the Global South. These actions seek to both increase the size of the community (our goal is to grow to 200,000 by 2015) and to bring important new knowledge to our projects.
I had a bit of trouble figuring out what the targets and strategy for increasing participation are, however.
Thoughts?
Also, let me extend a mea culpa for doing too little on the couple things I've felt strongly about: letters to recruit new members and promoting Wikiquette Alerts. It would help if the list focused a bit more on tasks to motivate us to conceive and carry out whatever projects are of most interest to us.
But you can take the weekend off - I will... '-)
Carol in DC
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:52 AM, carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
I had a bit of trouble figuring out what the targets and strategy for increasing participation are, however.
The part you just pasted linked to http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Summary, which gives these as the 2015 targets:
* Increase the total number of people served to 1 billion * Increase the number of Wikipedia articles we offer to 50 million * Ensure information is high quality by increasing the percentage of material reviewed to be of high or very high quality by 25 percent * Encourage readers to become contributors by increasing the number of total editors per month who made >5 edits to 200,000 * Support healthy diversity in the editing community by doubling the percentage of female editors to 25 percent and increase the percentage of Global South editors to 37 percent
Did you already see that? If you didn't see that, then I think those are the targets and the last seems to be related to this list.
If you already saw it, then what other targets are you looking for? We might have another page bout it somewhere.
Casey
On 7/2/2011 12:34 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 10:52 AM,carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
I had a bit of trouble figuring out what the targets and strategy for increasing participation are, however.
The part you just pasted linked to http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Summary, which gives these as the 2015 targets:
- Increase the total number of people served to 1 billion
- Increase the number of Wikipedia articles we offer to 50 million
- Ensure information is high quality by increasing the percentage of
material reviewed to be of high or very high quality by 25 percent
- Encourage readers to become contributors by increasing the number of
total editors per month who made>5 edits to 200,000
- Support healthy diversity in the editing community by doubling the
percentage of female editors to 25 percent and increase the percentage of Global South editors to 37 percent
Did you already see that? If you didn't see that, then I think those are the targets and the last seems to be related to this list.
Thanks. I must have clicked on strategy again instead of targets by mistake. 25% would be a good start. I dislike phrase Global South since needs too much explanation. But "the 2/3 (or whatever percent) of the human population which lives in the economically developing world" is a bit of a mouthful. It also helps to remind people that wikimedias exist in dozens of languages, but how to add that to one short phrase, I know not!
If you already saw it, then what other targets are you looking for? We might have another page bout it somewhere.
Casey
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:44 PM, carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
I dislike phrase Global South since needs too much explanation. But "the 2/3 (or whatever percent) of the human population which lives in the economically developing world" is a bit of a mouthful. It also helps to remind people that wikimedias exist in dozens of languages, but how to add that to one short phrase, I know not!
You're definitely not alone in that dislike. :-) Here's a definition though, for anyone who's not sure what it means: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_South
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Javier Bassi javierbassi@gmail.com wrote:
In march 2010 WP had 12% and now its on 9%? Am I right or I'm missing something? :\
The percentage isn't necessarily going down. The two percentages were found through surveys with pretty different methodologies. I think the most recent survey was intended to be "more scientific" in how it was executed, hopefully giving a more accurate snapshot and more specific numbers. So, pretty much, it's most likely been between 9% and 12% all along, we're just getting an either more accurate number or just a different amount of woman participated -- it doesn't mean that we're doing worse and are losing women we already had.
I'm not a statistician or anything, though, so this could all be misguided. ;-) I'm sure someone else would be able to add more here.
Casey,
On the statistics: No two samples drawn from a population, using an identical sampling method, will come up with the same results. The sample results themselves follow a probability distribution (in this case, the binomial distribution).
Results will average out over time, i.e. drawing a large number of samples will eventually yield an average result that will more and more closely reflect the true percentage in the population, but it is impossible to say whether a particular sample result corresponds to the true percentage, or whether it is higher or lower than that percentage.
If you have a box containing 100 red and 900 green balls and blindly draw a sample of ten, not every sample will contain 1 red and 9 green balls. Many will contain no red balls, others will contain 2, or 3, or once in a while even 10. The results will only average out over time, once many samples have been drawn. Confidence intervals can be calculated, based on sample size, to indicate that with 95% or 99% confidence the true percentage is within a a given range, but even these are just based on probabilities. The bigger the sample, the narrower (i.e. more precise) the confidence interval becomes.
In this case, the population may have changed since the last survey, and the survey did not even use the same sampling method, adding a further source of variation. Calculating a confidence interval may be useful though; usually statistical results are given with upper and lower confidence limits.
Andreas
--- On Sat, 2/7/11, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org wrote:
From: Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] New Survey: 9% female editors To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Cc: "Mani Pande" mpande@wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 2 July, 2011, 22:32
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:44 PM, carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
I dislike phrase Global South since needs too much explanation. But "the 2/3 (or whatever percent) of the human population which lives in the economically developing world" is a bit of a mouthful. It also helps to remind people that wikimedias exist in dozens of languages, but how to add that to one short phrase, I know not!
You're definitely not alone in that dislike. :-) Here's a definition though, for anyone who's not sure what it means: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_South
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Javier Bassi javierbassi@gmail.com wrote:
In march 2010 WP had 12% and now its on 9%? Am I right or I'm missing something? :\
The percentage isn't necessarily going down. The two percentages were found through surveys with pretty different methodologies. I think the most recent survey was intended to be "more scientific" in how it was executed, hopefully giving a more accurate snapshot and more specific numbers. So, pretty much, it's most likely been between 9% and 12% all along, we're just getting an either more accurate number or just a different amount of woman participated -- it doesn't mean that we're doing worse and are losing women we already had.
I'm not a statistician or anything, though, so this could all be misguided. ;-) I'm sure someone else would be able to add more here.
That's what I was trying to explain, but thank you for doing it using statistics words. =]
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 9:52 PM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@yahoo.com wrote:
Casey,
On the statistics: No two samples drawn from a population, using an identical sampling
method, will come up with the same results. The sample results themselves follow a
probability distribution (in this case, the binomial distribution).
Results will average out over time, i.e. drawing a large number of samples will eventually
yield an average result that will more and more closely reflect the true percentage in the
population, but it is impossible to say whether a particular sample result corresponds to
the true percentage, or whether it is higher or lower than that percentage.
If you have a box containing 100 red and 900 green balls and blindly draw a sample of ten,
not every sample will contain 1 red and 9 green balls. Many will contain no red balls, others
will contain 2, or 3, or once in a while even 10. The results will only average out over time,
once many samples have been drawn. Confidence intervals can be calculated, based on
sample size, to indicate that with 95% or 99% confidence the true percentage is within a
a given range, but even these are just based on probabilities. The bigger the sample, the
narrower (i.e. more precise) the confidence interval becomes.
In this case, the population may have changed since the last survey, and the survey did not
even use the same sampling method, adding a further source of variation. Calculating a
confidence interval may be useful though; usually statistical results are given with upper and
lower confidence limits.
Andreas
--- On *Sat, 2/7/11, Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org* wrote:
From: Casey Brown lists@caseybrown.org Subject: Re: [Gendergap] New Survey: 9% female editors
To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" < gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> Cc: "Mani Pande" mpande@wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 2 July, 2011, 22:32
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:44 PM, <carolmooredc@verizon.nethttp://mc/compose?to=carolmooredc@verizon.net> wrote:
I dislike phrase Global South since needs too much explanation. But "the 2/3 (or whatever percent) of the human population which lives in the economically developing world" is a bit of a mouthful. It also helps to remind people that wikimedias exist in dozens of languages, but how to add that to one short phrase, I know
not!
You're definitely not alone in that dislike. :-) Here's a definition though, for anyone who's not sure what it means: http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Global_South
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 5:24 PM, Javier Bassi <javierbassi@gmail.comhttp://mc/compose?to=javierbassi@gmail.com> wrote:
In march 2010 WP had 12% and now its on 9%? Am I right or I'm missing something? :\
The percentage isn't necessarily going down. The two percentages were found through surveys with pretty different methodologies. I think the most recent survey was intended to be "more scientific" in how it was executed, hopefully giving a more accurate snapshot and more specific numbers. So, pretty much, it's most likely been between 9% and 12% all along, we're just getting an either more accurate number or just a different amount of woman participated -- it doesn't mean that we're doing worse and are losing women we already had.
I'm not a statistician or anything, though, so this could all be misguided. ;-) I'm sure someone else would be able to add more here.
-- Casey Brown Cbrown1023
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttp://mc/compose?to=Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 7/2/11 2:32 PM, Casey Brown wrote:
In march 2010 WP had 12% and now its on 9%? Am I right or I'm missing
something? :\
The percentage isn't necessarily going down. The two percentages were found through surveys with pretty different methodologies. I think the most recent survey was intended to be "more scientific" in how it was executed, hopefully giving a more accurate snapshot and more specific numbers. So, pretty much, it's most likely been between 9% and 12% all along, we're just getting an either more accurate number or just a different amount of woman participated -- it doesn't mean that we're doing worse and are losing women we already had.
To add to what Casey said in an earlier email, the methodology that we used for conducting the two surveys is slightly different and we can attribute the variability in gender count to it. The recent survey was only shown to those who have an account on Wikipedia, and were logged in during the one week when the survey was in field. In addition, to avoid the data being skewed towards more frequent editors, we showed the banner only once. This ensured that we had a higher probability of participation from editors rather than readers and the sample did not skew towards more frequent editors, and I feel that this could account for variability in the data. Mani
--- On Sat, 2/7/11, carolmooredc@verizon.net carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
From: carolmooredc@verizon.net carolmooredc@verizon.net Subject: [Gendergap] New Survey: 9% female editors To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 2 July, 2011, 15:52
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/06/10/wikipedia-editors-do-it-for-fun-first-r...
Also, interesting statistics on ages, with 30 plus almost as large as 12-29 year olds.
If the median age has crept up into the late twenties, that seems like a good sign. In the 2009 survey, it stood at 22: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMFstratplanSurvey1.png
I have said this before, but we seem to lack African-American editors, and it's my impression we don't cover African-American culture well. I wonder if we could get an article out on theroot.com
One thing I missed in the recent survey was a specific question about which race and religion editors belonged to. It would be good to have such data, and compare it to
general demographics, both in the English-speaking core countries, and the world population in general to identify demographics that are over- or underrepresented.
Andreas
Plus this note:
As has been discussed recently, it is an important priority for the Wikimedia movement to progressively add diversity to our community. We have set targets in our strategy for greater participation of women and for rapid growth in the Global South. These actions seek to both increase the size of the community (our goal is to grow to 200,000 by 2015) and to bring important new knowledge to our projects.
I had a bit of trouble figuring out what the targets and strategy for increasing participation are, however.
Thoughts?
Also, let me extend a mea culpa for doing too little on the couple things I've felt strongly about: letters to recruit new members and promoting Wikiquette Alerts. It would help if the list focused a bit more on tasks to motivate us to conceive and carry out whatever projects are of most interest to us.
But you can take the weekend off - I will... '-)
Carol in DC
-----Inline Attachment Follows-----
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--- On Sat, 2/7/11, carolmooredc@verizon.net carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
From: carolmooredc@verizon.net carolmooredc@verizon.net Subject: [Gendergap] New Survey: 9% female editors To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org Date: Saturday, 2 July, 2011, 15:52
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/06/10/wikipedia-editors-do-it-for-fun-first-r...
Also, interesting statistics on ages, with 30 plus almost as large as 12-29 year olds.
Children and teenagers create lots of accounts, but the general run of them can't contribute much any more, and we've blocked lots of schools.
If the median age has crept up into the late twenties, that seems like a good sign. In the 2009 survey, it stood at 22: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:WMFstratplanSurvey1.png
I have said this before, but we seem to lack African-American editors, and it's my impression we don't cover African-American culture well. I wonder if we could get an article out on theroot.com
There are a few really good and prolific African-American editors, but mass participation is not there, but that kind of fits the demographic.
American Hispanics even more so
One thing I missed in the recent survey was a specific question about which race and religion editors belonged to. It would be good to have such data, and compare it to
general demographics, both in the English-speaking core countries, and the world population in general to identify demographics that are over- or underrepresented.
Andreas
American Indians barely edit. I edit articles on American Indian history and I don't think I've ever run into an Indian editor.
My strategy with any of these groups, and women too, is to generally support them strongly, but not to support any particular campaign they engage in. For example, the idea that Egyptians are "Black", which one young African-American woman was promoting strongly, against considerable opposition.
So that is the first premise, the door has to be open for everyone and they should be able to depend on strong support by others.
Whether they will come in the door is another matter. And how we handle particular strongly held points of view is another. For example, we had a Ute chief come and give a talk in Crestone. Very smart, wise man, an elder, but he made a point of maintaining that the Utes have always lived in the Rocky Mountain west and that any theory about crossing the Bering Strait was just nonsense. That sort of attitude can be documented, of course, but I doubt he could do that if he decided to edit. This guy was about my age so I know he could if he thought it mattered.
And that, I guess, is the missing piece, believing, or knowing, that editing matters in shaping global knowledge and consciousness.
That is kind of the story of academia, they thought they had a monopoly.
Fred
Fred,
--- On Sat, 2/7/11, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
I have said this before, but we seem to lack African-American editors, and it's my impression we don't cover African-American culture well. I wonder if we could get an article out on theroot.com
There are a few really good and prolific African-American editors, but mass participation is not there, but that kind of fits the demographic.
I know of one that fits that description (TTT), and there's one (1) admin who indicates African-American (as well as Jewish) on their user page.
African-Americans are very active on Twitter (with higher participation rates than Caucasians), but for some reason haven't taken to Wikipedia in their masses.
American Hispanics even more so
That may in part be a language issue; I would hope that Spanish-speaking Hispanic Americans do contribute to the Spanish Wikipedia. Again, having data would be useful.
American Indians barely edit. I edit articles on American Indian history and I don't think I've ever run into an Indian editor.
My strategy with any of these groups, and women too, is to generally support them strongly, but not to support any particular campaign they engage in. For example, the idea that Egyptians are "Black", which one young African-American woman was promoting strongly, against considerable opposition.
I looked in on [[Ancient Egyptian race controversy]] once, and it was not pretty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Arch...
The same problems that women encounter with women's topics are also encountered by editors writing on black studies.
For example, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Lusala_lu_ne_Nkuka_Luka#Speedy_deleti...
Marimba Ani is unquestionably a notable, black, female scholar, yet we didn't want to have an article on her:
http://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=Henry+Loui...
http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%...
http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=%...
(As a matter of fact, I now know what my next article is going to be.)
Having data on African-American participation, rather than guesses based on pictures uploaded to Commons, would help.
Outreach to African Studies departments might help, as would an interview with Sue in The Root, or Ebony.
Andreas
So that is the first premise, the door has to be open for everyone and they should be able to depend on strong support by others.
Whether they will come in the door is another matter. And how we handle particular strongly held points of view is another. For example, we had a Ute chief come and give a talk in Crestone. Very smart, wise man, an elder, but he made a point of maintaining that the Utes have always lived in the Rocky Mountain west and that any theory about crossing the Bering Strait was just nonsense. That sort of attitude can be documented, of course, but I doubt he could do that if he decided to edit. This guy was about my age so I know he could if he thought it mattered.
And that, I guess, is the missing piece, believing, or knowing, that editing matters in shaping global knowledge and consciousness.
That is kind of the story of academia, they thought they had a monopoly.
Fred
_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
In march 2010 WP had 12% and now its on 9%? Am I right or I'm missing something? :\
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:52 AM, carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/06/10/wikipedia-editors-do-it-for-fun-first-r...
In march 2010 WP had 12% and now its on 9%? Am I right or I'm missing something? :\
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:52 AM, carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/06/10/wikipedia-editors-do-it-for-fun-first-r...
Both figures are within a fair standard of error. We don't have a good way of measuring.
Fred