http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_Wikipedians
How did we go from a dozen to 1,700? Some other category got renamed and redirected?
Or some bot added everyone who had one of the user boxes in that category??
Looked at a few and didn't see evidence someone manually added them all.
FYI.
CM
I added myself (I dream of horses) manually, if using HotCat can be seen as "manual".
But yeah, that is a bit suspicious. What happened?
From, Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:32 PM, Carol Moore DC carolmooredc@verizon.netwrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/**Category:Female_Wikipedianshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_Wikipedians
How did we go from a dozen to 1,700? Some other category got renamed and redirected?
Or some bot added everyone who had one of the user boxes in that category??
Looked at a few and didn't see evidence someone manually added them all.
FYI.
CM
______________________________**_________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/**mailman/listinfo/gendergaphttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
LOL. Wow, explosion is right.
Yes, it looks like something magically added anyone who has those infoboxes to the list.
Ha ha!
-Sarah
On 9/24/12 3:32 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_Wikipedians
How did we go from a dozen to 1,700? Some other category got renamed and redirected?
Or some bot added everyone who had one of the user boxes in that category??
Looked at a few and didn't see evidence someone manually added them all.
FYI.
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
"Those infoboxes"? You mean, the kind that I have on my userpage? Or userboxes?
From, Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
LOL. Wow, explosion is right.
Yes, it looks like something magically added anyone who has those infoboxes to the list.
Ha ha!
-Sarah
On 9/24/12 3:32 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_Wikipedians
How did we go from a dozen to 1,700? Some other category got renamed and redirected?
Or some bot added everyone who had one of the user boxes in that category??
Looked at a few and didn't see evidence someone manually added them all.
FYI.
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist and open culture advocate*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 9/24/12 3:35 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
"Those infoboxes"? You mean, the kind that I have on my userpage? Or userboxes?
GAH. I meant userboxes.
DOH! :)
-Sarah
From, Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Sarah Stierch <sarah.stierch@gmail.com mailto:sarah.stierch@gmail.com> wrote:
LOL. Wow, explosion is right. Yes, it looks like something magically added anyone who has those infoboxes to the list. Ha ha! -Sarah On 9/24/12 3:32 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_Wikipedians How did we go from a dozen to 1,700? Some other category got renamed and redirected? Or some bot added everyone who had one of the user boxes in that category?? Looked at a few and didn't see evidence someone manually added them all. FYI. CM _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap-- *Sarah Stierch* */Museumist and open culture advocate/* >>Visit sarahstierch.com <http://sarahstierch.com><< _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto: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
So. The implications of this. Good, bad, or does it really achieve anything?
From, Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:36 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
On 9/24/12 3:35 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
"Those infoboxes"? You mean, the kind that I have on my userpage? Or userboxes?
GAH. I meant userboxes.
DOH! :)
-Sarah
From, Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:34 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
LOL. Wow, explosion is right.
Yes, it looks like something magically added anyone who has those infoboxes to the list.
Ha ha!
-Sarah
On 9/24/12 3:32 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_Wikipedians
How did we go from a dozen to 1,700? Some other category got renamed and redirected?
Or some bot added everyone who had one of the user boxes in that category??
Looked at a few and didn't see evidence someone manually added them all.
FYI.
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist and open culture advocate*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist and open culture advocate*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 9/24/12 3:37 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
So. The implications of this. Good, bad, or does it really achieve anything?
From, Emily
I'm not sure if there really is any good or bad implication, so to say. All it shows is that, in theory, there are approximately 1700 people in English Wikipedia who may identify as a female.
I wonder how many of these editors are active.
-Sarah
Well, a few of my previous accounts may in there, but I put {{Abadoned account}} on all of them, so...
From, Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:39 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
On 9/24/12 3:37 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
So. The implications of this. Good, bad, or does it really achieve anything?
From, Emily
I'm not sure if there really is any good or bad implication, so to say. All it shows is that, in theory, there are approximately 1700 people in English Wikipedia who may identify as a female.
I wonder how many of these editors are active.
-Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
To me it seems beneficial to have a broadly accessible opportunity to formulate and answer questions about self-identified women on Wikipedia. The benefit is in empowering researchers and our community to pursue interesting questions -- but by definition, we don't know what the questions are yet :)
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
On 9/24/12 3:37 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
So. The implications of this. Good, bad, or does it really achieve anything?
From, Emily
I'm not sure if there really is any good or bad implication, so to say. All it shows is that, in theory, there are approximately 1700 people in English Wikipedia who may identify as a female.
I wonder how many of these editors are active.
-Sarah
-- Sarah Stierch _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
So, what are the questions?
From, Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 5:47 PM, Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com wrote:
To me it seems beneficial to have a broadly accessible opportunity to formulate and answer questions about self-identified women on Wikipedia. The benefit is in empowering researchers and our community to pursue interesting questions -- but by definition, we don't know what the questions are yet :)
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sep 24, 2012, at 3:39 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
On 9/24/12 3:37 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
So. The implications of this. Good, bad, or does it really achieve
anything?
From, Emily
I'm not sure if there really is any good or bad implication, so to say.
All it shows is that, in theory, there are approximately 1700 people in English Wikipedia who may identify as a female.
I wonder how many of these editors are active.
-Sarah
-- Sarah Stierch _______________________________________________ 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 Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
So, what are the questions?
Why do women start? Why do women quit? Is it different from reasons men quit?
Is there a sector where outreach has a higher conversion rate into Wikipedian Women?
Is there an age bracket where outreach has a higher conversion rate into Wikipedian Women?
(e.g.) I suspect that our women typically come from glam & education, whereas our men typically come from IT & law.
-- John Vandenberg
Well, I am a GED graduate on disability, if that helps.
From, Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:01 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
So, what are the questions?
Why do women start? Why do women quit? Is it different from reasons men quit?
Is there a sector where outreach has a higher conversion rate into Wikipedian Women?
Is there an age bracket where outreach has a higher conversion rate into Wikipedian Women?
(e.g.) I suspect that our women typically come from glam & education, whereas our men typically come from IT & law.
-- John Vandenberg
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Yeah, I agree with John, those sorts of question becomes easier to answer when there's more immediate information available (even if the information isn't perfect or complete).
In addition, I can imagine that exploring the category and looking at user pages might inspire the formulation of more detailed questions.
As an analogy, today I was reading a biography of political analyst Nate Silver, famous for being the first to call the 2008 U.S. presidential election. One of his earlier claims to fame, as a baseball statistician, was extending the work of Bill James, a famous baseball statistician. He looked for patterns in pitching performance that took into account physical characteristics -- e.g., height and weight.
I would guess that Silver's inspiration to start that project originated with the greater accessibility of data in his era (the 2000s) than James' era (the 1980s).
In other words: if you remove obstacles, surprising things can happen.
In one case, you can end up with a huge and fascinating encyclopedia. Perhaps in another, you can end up with useful research about gender and Wikipedia.
Removing barriers isn't a measurable benefit in itself, but it can support the emergence of things that are beneficial.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sep 24, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
Well, I am a GED graduate on disability, if that helps.
From, Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:01 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
So, what are the questions?
Why do women start? Why do women quit? Is it different from reasons men quit?
Is there a sector where outreach has a higher conversion rate into Wikipedian Women?
Is there an age bracket where outreach has a higher conversion rate into Wikipedian Women?
(e.g.) I suspect that our women typically come from glam & education, whereas our men typically come from IT & law.
-- 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
Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile
One little note - I did utilize these userboxes when inviting female editors (or presumed female) to participate in my Women and Wikimedia survey last year.
-Sarah
On 9/24/12 4:09 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Yeah, I agree with John, those sorts of question becomes easier to answer when there's more immediate information available (even if the information isn't perfect or complete).
In addition, I can imagine that exploring the category and looking at user pages might inspire the formulation of more detailed questions.
As an analogy, today I was reading a biography of political analyst Nate Silver, famous for being the first to call the 2008 U.S. presidential election. One of his earlier claims to fame, as a baseball statistician, was extending the work of Bill James, a famous baseball statistician. He looked for patterns in pitching performance that took into account physical characteristics -- e.g., height and weight.
I would guess that Silver's inspiration to start that project originated with the greater accessibility of data in his era (the 2000s) than James' era (the 1980s).
In other words: if you remove obstacles, surprising things can happen.
In one case, you can end up with a huge and fascinating encyclopedia. Perhaps in another, you can end up with useful research about gender and Wikipedia.
Removing barriers isn't a measurable benefit in itself, but it can support the emergence of things that are beneficial.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sep 24, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
Well, I am a GED graduate on disability, if that helps.
From, Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:01 PM, John Vandenberg <jayvdb@gmail.com mailto:jayvdb@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Emily Monroe <emilymonroe03@gmail.com <mailto:emilymonroe03@gmail.com>> wrote: > So, what are the questions? Why do women start? Why do women quit? Is it different from reasons men quit? Is there a sector where outreach has a higher conversion rate into Wikipedian Women? Is there an age bracket where outreach has a higher conversion rate into Wikipedian Women? (e.g.) I suspect that our women typically come from glam & education, whereas our men typically come from IT & law. -- John Vandenberg _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com mailto:peteforsyth@gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Yeah, I remember that.
From, Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
One little note - I did utilize these userboxes when inviting female editors (or presumed female) to participate in my Women and Wikimedia survey last year.
-Sarah
On 9/24/12 4:09 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Yeah, I agree with John, those sorts of question becomes easier to answer when there's more immediate information available (even if the information isn't perfect or complete).
In addition, I can imagine that exploring the category and looking at user pages might inspire the formulation of more detailed questions.
As an analogy, today I was reading a biography of political analyst Nate Silver, famous for being the first to call the 2008 U.S. presidential election. One of his earlier claims to fame, as a baseball statistician, was extending the work of Bill James, a famous baseball statistician. He looked for patterns in pitching performance that took into account physical characteristics -- e.g., height and weight.
I would guess that Silver's inspiration to start that project originated with the greater accessibility of data in his era (the 2000s) than James' era (the 1980s).
In other words: if you remove obstacles, surprising things can happen.
In one case, you can end up with a huge and fascinating encyclopedia. Perhaps in another, you can end up with useful research about gender and Wikipedia.
Removing barriers isn't a measurable benefit in itself, but it can support the emergence of things that are beneficial.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sep 24, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
Well, I am a GED graduate on disability, if that helps.
From, Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:01 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
So, what are the questions?
Why do women start? Why do women quit? Is it different from reasons men quit?
Is there a sector where outreach has a higher conversion rate into Wikipedian Women?
Is there an age bracket where outreach has a higher conversion rate into Wikipedian Women?
(e.g.) I suspect that our women typically come from glam & education, whereas our men typically come from IT & law.
-- 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
Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Museumist and open culture advocate*
Visit sarahstierch.com http://sarahstierch.com<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
There is another way to look at the number of females who have identified themselves as female. I don't know if you remember when you first signed up, you probably ended up at Special:Preferences where you entered an email address. On that same page there is a field where people can opt to provide their gender. I've got a user script that tells me the rights of a user when I go to their user page, but at the same time it also tells me their gender if stated by usage of the appropriate symbol.
Thus, this information is publicly accessible as far as I am aware and so a Toolserver query or similar could be run to get a list of users who have identified themselves as female through their preferences.
I don't know if this has been discussed before, I've only fairly recently joined this mailing list, but it could be a good way to find an active base of female editors to ask your questions to other than the ones that have used the user box or are actively participating in gender gap discussions.
Thehelpfulone https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Thehelpfulone
On 25 Sep 2012, at 00:15, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, I remember that.
From, Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
One little note - I did utilize these userboxes when inviting female editors (or presumed female) to participate in my Women and Wikimedia survey last year.
-Sarah
On 9/24/12 4:09 PM, Pete Forsyth wrote:
Yeah, I agree with John, those sorts of question becomes easier to answer when there's more immediate information available (even if the information isn't perfect or complete).
In addition, I can imagine that exploring the category and looking at user pages might inspire the formulation of more detailed questions.
As an analogy, today I was reading a biography of political analyst Nate Silver, famous for being the first to call the 2008 U.S. presidential election. One of his earlier claims to fame, as a baseball statistician, was extending the work of Bill James, a famous baseball statistician. He looked for patterns in pitching performance that took into account physical characteristics -- e.g., height and weight.
I would guess that Silver's inspiration to start that project originated with the greater accessibility of data in his era (the 2000s) than James' era (the 1980s).
In other words: if you remove obstacles, surprising things can happen.
In one case, you can end up with a huge and fascinating encyclopedia. Perhaps in another, you can end up with useful research about gender and Wikipedia.
Removing barriers isn't a measurable benefit in itself, but it can support the emergence of things that are beneficial.
-Pete [[User:Peteforsyth]]
On Sep 24, 2012, at 4:02 PM, Emily Monroe wrote:
Well, I am a GED graduate on disability, if that helps.
From, Emily
On Mon, Sep 24, 2012 at 6:01 PM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
So, what are the questions?
Why do women start? Why do women quit? Is it different from reasons men quit?
Is there a sector where outreach has a higher conversion rate into Wikipedian Women?
Is there an age bracket where outreach has a higher conversion rate into Wikipedian Women?
(e.g.) I suspect that our women typically come from glam & education, whereas our men typically come from IT & law.
-- 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
Pete Forsyth peteforsyth@gmail.com 503-383-9454 mobile
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Sarah Stierch Museumist and open culture advocate
Visit sarahstierch.com<<
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 Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 8:25 AM, Thehelpfulone thehelpfulonewiki@gmail.com wrote:
There is another way to look at the number of females who have identified themselves as female. I don't know if you remember when you first signed up, you probably ended up at Special:Preferences where you entered an email address. On that same page there is a field where people can opt to provide their gender. I've got a user script that tells me the rights of a user when I go to their user page, but at the same time it also tells me their gender if stated by usage of the appropriate symbol.
Thus, this information is publicly accessible as far as I am aware and so a Toolserver query or similar could be run to get a list of users who have identified themselves as female through their preferences.
I don't know if this has been discussed before, I've only fairly recently joined this mailing list, but it could be a good way to find an active base of female editors to ask your questions to other than the ones that have used the user box or are actively participating in gender gap discussions.
I dont recall it being discussed recently. I would like to install that userscript, and think a dump of that data would be very helpful.
On 25 Sep 2012, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
I dont recall it being discussed recently. I would like to install that userscript, and think a dump of that data would be very helpful.
-- John Vandenberg
I believe the line you need to add to your common.js or monobook.js or vector.js is
importScript('User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js'); More info at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PleaseStand/userinfo
Source is at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PleaseStand/userinfo.js.
THO
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
So. The implications of this. Good, bad, or does it really achieve anything?
For Australia, it means we can do time series analysis of the gender gap based on the October 2010 dataset that Laura Hale published and analysed.
http://ozziesport.com/2010/10/expanded-profile-of-australian-en-wp-users/
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:40 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
Well, a few of my previous accounts may in there, but I put {{Abadoned account}} on all of them, so...
The category intersection tools allow pages to be eliminated if they have a template or category on them.
https://toolserver.org/~magnus/catscan_rewrite.php
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:49 AM, John Vandenberg jayvdb@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:37 AM, Emily Monroe emilymonroe03@gmail.com wrote:
So. The implications of this. Good, bad, or does it really achieve anything?
For Australia, it means we can do time series analysis of the gender gap based on the October 2010 dataset that Laura Hale published and analysed.
http://ozziesport.com/2010/10/expanded-profile-of-australian-en-wp-users/
argh .. correction.. the category was deleted in October 2010 so Laura's data extract doesnt include this.
We can *start* doing analysis of this .. ;-)
It looks like User:Nikkimaria did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AUBX%2Ffemale&diff=51350...
She added the category to the usercategory aspect of the template.
Woot!!
-Sarah
On 9/24/12 3:32 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_Wikipedians
How did we go from a dozen to 1,700? Some other category got renamed and redirected?
Or some bot added everyone who had one of the user boxes in that category??
Looked at a few and didn't see evidence someone manually added them all.
FYI.
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The category was previously in the userbox until the category was deleted in 2007 and 2012.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_female&diff=139...
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:User_female&diff=509...
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 5:36 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
It looks like User:Nikkimaria did it: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AUBX%2Ffemale&diff=51350...
She added the category to the usercategory aspect of the template.
Woot!!
-Sarah
On 9/24/12 3:32 PM, Carol Moore DC wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Female_Wikipedians
How did we go from a dozen to 1,700? Some other category got renamed and redirected?
Or some bot added everyone who had one of the user boxes in that category??
Looked at a few and didn't see evidence someone manually added them all.
FYI.
CM
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
-- Sarah Stierch Museumist and open culture advocate
Visit sarahstierch.com<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap