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(a)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(a)caseybrown.org>* wrote:
From: Casey Brown <lists(a)caseybrown.org>
Subject: Re: [Gendergap] New Survey: 9% female editors
To: "Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects" <
gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Cc: "Mani Pande" <mpande(a)wikimedia.org>
Date: Saturday, 2 July, 2011, 22:32
On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:44 PM,
<carolmooredc@verizon.net<http://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.com<http://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.org<http://mc/compose?to=Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap