From: sgardner(a)wikimedia.org Date: Fri, 18 Mar 2011 00:21:43 -0700 Subject: Re: [Gendergap] This list To: gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org CC: collective_action(a)hotmail.com Hi Rosie, I will take a crack at answering your questions, in-line below :-) On 17 March 2011 22:41, Collective Action <collective_action(a)hotmail.com> wrote: I can't speak for the Wikipedia editorial volunteer hierarchy. But I can speak for the Wikimedia Foundation, and yes, we believe the gender gap is a problem that needs to be solved. Currently, 13% of Wikimedia editors self-identify as female [1], and we've set ourselves a target to double that by 2015. [1] 13% of respondents to the 2008 UNU-Merit Editor Survey said they are female. We believe that number is probably a little off, because although there was a healthy sample size, the methodology probably resulted in favouring of frequent editors. So the 13% may be a little skewed, but probably not too much. I don't think so, no. My personal belief (and my own experiences, and readings on-wiki) suggest to me that Wikimedians are significantly less overtly, explicitly sexist than non-Wikimedians. Many, many online cultures are blatantly misogynist: Wikimedia IMO is not. I'm not saying that sexist remarks never happen (and of course it depends what you define as sexist): I would expect that they do. But I don't think Wikimedia is a particularly sexualized culture; I don't think it's a culture that tends to stereotype and objectify, and I think most/many of the men on Wikipedia would recoil from overt sexism. That doesn't mean we don't behave in ways that deter women's participation: I think it's obvious that we do [2]. But I don't think that direct personal aggressive sexism is particularly present on Wikipedia. (It might be worth knowing that in about a month, we are going to put a new Editor Survey in the field, that includes a half-dozen questions about gender and sexism. That will be the first time we've surveyed editors, male and female, about their experiences and observations with regard to gender on the Wikimedia projects. So we'll see what gets reported.) The Wikimedia Foundation doesn't police editors' behaviour on Wikipedia. Policing editors' behaviour is a responsibility of the Wikimedia editorial community, through dispute resolution mechanisms, the Arbitration Committee, and other avenues. (There are some people here who can talk about Arb Comm, for example.) The Wikimedia Foundation just couldn't possibly police it: there are 100,000 editors here working in 270+ languages, and we would never have the ability to investigate problems, nor to enforce compliance with behavioural standards. And ultimately, editors are online volunteers, and if they are unhappy or feel unsafe, they always have the ability to exercise their option to stop editing. At the end of the day, they have alternatives. They are here by choice, and they can leave if they want. Having said that, I do wish that the Wikimedia Foundation could do more to protect editors from harassment. I believe that only a very small number of editors has ever faced serious harassment, but I am aware of some instances in which it's occurred. We have, in a very small number of instances, offered advice and support of various kinds. But we can't be responsible for people's safety on Wikipedia, any more than Facebook, for example, can be responsible for people's safety there. I think the usual advice to people joining online communities is that they should lurk for a while, read, and get the hang of things. I'm not aware of any special cautioning orientation materials for new people on Wikipedia. (Although as I write this, I do actually remember that when I first started editing, I stumbled across advice on how to remain anonymous, whether or not to use my real name, and some other bits and pieces. But I believe I found it by reading really widely and deeply; it wasn't collected together in one place.) It might actually be a really good project for this group: to aim to create a set of help materials for new female editors. No, I don't think so. The Wikimedia Foundation staff who are on this list are present by their own choice, because they want to help. No-one's been assigned to be here, and no-one has any special authority to control the debate here. I am the list owner, and I think there are a couple of moderators as well, but I expect everything here will happen via consensus. I don't consider this to be a list "for" the Wikimedia Foundation; I consider it to be a list for the people here. I expect that the Wikimedia Foundation staff who are here joined because they want to know more about what female editors want and need. The people here from the staff are e.g., interface designers, community staff, product/strategy people, etc. who want to take women's views into consideration as they do their work. The women here aren't necessarily representative of people outside this list, but I expect staff here feel it's a good place to learn a little and maybe kick around ideas for feedback. I'm not sure exactly what that question means, but I'll take a crack at it, and you can tell me if I've misunderstood what you're asking. There are no formal guidelines/structure/policy behind the list. Wikimedia lists typically operate in accordance within a set of loose conventions: basically, informal 'folk wisdom' -- AFAIK they've never been documented anywhere, and I myself learned them through observation over time. Generally speaking, with some partial exceptions: most of our lists are open to the public, anyone can join or leave any time, people are asked to remain civil but there is wide latitude for disagreement and debate, and off-topic discussion is discouraged but not entirely verboten. Some lists have expectations of privacy, but the archives for this list are public, so there should be no expectation of privacy here. Is that useful? It's funny: as I write all that I realize that of course none of it is obvious to people who haven't spent a lot of time in the Wikimedia community: you're reminding me of how frustrated I was three or four years ago, as I learned all those informal, unwritten, undocumented conventions. We really have a lot of work to do, if we want Wikimedia to become more porous, more penetrable :-) Anyway Rosie, I hope this helps. Feel free to follow up if anything's unclear, or if you think we should adjust/adapt, feel free to say that too. Other people should elaborate/refine my answers too, if they want :-) Thanks, Sue [2] Oh, I wanted to add this. Although I don't believe explicit overt sexism is particularly present on Wikipedia, I do think women face particular impediments due to their gender. The Wikimedia Foundation has identified a number of challenges that deter people from wanting to edit: the editing interface is too hard to use; deletions and reversions are climbing; the culture can be fighty; the culture isn't very welcoming/encouraging/supportive; and there are a lot of editorial policies and practices that people need to learn, in order to edit effectively. And, we speculate that there may be three issues particular to women, that explain their disproportionately low presence. * Some studies say women self-report as less technically confident than men. And, some research suggests that women may generally be inclined to use technology as a tool for working, with men generally more inclined to use it for fun. To the extent that this is true, MediaWiki’s lack of usability may have a disproportionately deterring effect on women. To be clear: the problem is the same for everyone, but it may affect women, on the whole, more than men. Obviously this isn't the case for existing, experienced female editors. * Research finds that women generally are more attuned to social cues than men: more damaged by disapproval, and more buoyed by support. We know that successful Wikimedians, whatever their gender, tend to be unusually insensitive to reproach. This suggests that in general women may tend to feel the lack of affirmation on Wikipedia more keenly than men do, and that warnings, reversions/deletions and a fighty culture may disproportionately deter women. This means that efforts to increase friendliness and a sense of warmth, and to reduce fightyness, will disproportionately increase retention of women. This problem is also the same for everyone, but may affect women somewhat more than it does men. * Deletions and reversions are damaging to all new editors, and may disproportionately damage women due to their attunement to social cues. However, it’s also possible that women’s contributions are in fact likelier than men’s to be unfairly reverted/deleted, due to systemic bias. This is a theory: there’s no hard data to support it. But it seems reasonable to assume that when editorial decisions (e.g., determining notability, relevance, appropriate weight, neutrality, reliability of sources) are made primarily by men, women’s contributions may be likelier than men’s to be deemed non-notable, not relevant, inappropriately weighted, non-neutral or cited with unreliable sources. Certainly there is anecdotal evidence suggesting this is true: in the wake of the New York Times gender gap story, many women told stories online, in blog comments and discussion forums, saying this had happened to them.