In reply to Kerry Raymond's post...
QUANTIFICATION
If "all the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10%" but there are anecdotes of a significant undercount from Teahouse volunteers and such and if female participation at Wikimania approaches one-third, would that not seem to fortify my point that there is a need for reexamination of the magnitude of the gender gap? What is the exact magnitude of the female undercount (or the male overcount)?
This does not even bring up the matter of dynamics — is the gender disparity changing over time, and if so, which direction is it moving?
There is only one way to find this out: study, study, study, survey, survey, survey...
That WMF has its own editor gender data from 2012 that it is not releasing, as has been intimated, is annoying. Still: why is the GGTF waiting for San Francisco at all? Why is quantification and surveying not a vital part of the task force's mission?
That there is an editorial gender gap is beyond dispute. But how big is it really and how is it changing over time?
PROACTIVE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
So if edit-a-thons don't work, as you indicate, why is the WMF still spending money on them? Is it mere symbolism?
I have noted from working with a college class at WP that short-term class assignments don't seem to create long-term Wikipedians. Students being students, they slam out the minimum required right before deadline and move along with their lives. I don't know what does create long-term content people, other than a passion about SOMETHING and a desire to share the information. Vandal fighters and quality control people may have a different motivation.
Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that there is NOTHING that can be done proactively to pick the needles out of the haystack — that it is impossible for any bureaucratic entity to identify and activate the small fraction of 1% of people that will eventually become long-term Wikipedia volunteers.
This would mean that the "needles" are going to self-identify by registering at WP and beginning work under their own volition. Therefore, logically, primary attention should be focused on identifying and cultivating "new editors" every day, nurturing the newbies as they start to navigate the technical and cultural learning curves. In which case, Ms. Stierch's "Teahouse" concept is 100% right on the money.
And that's where the gender gap can be addressed, by making sure that every effort is made to teach and acclimate female newcomers in particular.
As for edit-a-thons and outreach recruiting, I personally believe that any recruitment that is not focused on teachers and academics will probably not produce lasting results. I'm also pretty well convinced that long term Wikipedians are made one at a time.
Tim Davenport "Carrite" on WP Corvallis, OR
=========
Kerry Raymond wrote:
A. All the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10% plus or minus a few percent. Of course, it is possible that in all of the studies the women are choosing not to self-identify. It is an inherent difficulty in any study if people choose to not reveal information. But we know women make up large proportions of social media users, so if womens participation in Wikipedia is actually higher than studies show due to reluctance to self-identify, it begs the question of why they are so unwilling to self-identify in the content of Wikipedia but not in other contexts. Either way, it points to some problem. The last Wikimania recently released data that does show a higher level of female participation, about 1 in 3, I think. It would be interesting to see how the male/female numbers break down across the various types of attendees, e.g. WMF staff, Chapter members, event organisers, etc. My suspicion is that women are in higher proportion among staffers, chapters, etc and this skews the Wikimania participation. I dont know how scholarships are awarded and whether women are at any advantage in that process.
B. A very interesting research paperhttp://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf shows that women are less likely to survive the newbie stage than men. But, perhaps contrary to what many expected, their data does not suggest that women are more easily discouraged by being reverted (they show men and womens survival rates in the face of reversion are similar) but that more womens edits are reverted than mens edits and this is the cause of higher attrition among women. This has caused me to wonder if women as newbies are more attracted to articles where the risk of reversion is higher perhaps because there are more policies to be considered (e.g. biographies of living people, noting that women are predominantly the purchasers of celebrity magazines which deal mostly in content related to living people). The paper does show that men and women edit in different areas (men are more likely to edit in geography and science for example) but the analysis is too high level to answer my question. The other inherent limitation in any study of newbies that there is nothing in the initial signup to Wikipedia that asks you about your gender (even optionally) so very few newbies are self-identifying as either male or female at that time. So, its actually very hard to study the non-surviving female newbies because you cant find them. This often means our study of the experiences of newbies is based heavily on those who are still around later to be studied or surveyed which introduces survivor bias into the study. So this may be a consideration in relation to the findings of this paper. Interview studies keep pointing to women not liking the abrasive environment of Wikipedia. Civility is a part of that issue. Although I think its not so much about the use of specific words, but rather a general culture of aggression. The people who use the swear words are simply much easier to spot and hold up as examples of the broader problem than those who engage in equally aggressive behaviour but do so citing [[WP:Policy]] and use the undo-button.
C. In relation to pro-active recruitment, I do a lot of that here in Australia, edit training and edit-a-thons. While some of the edit-a-thons have targeted women participants and are therefore predominantly women, edit training events are generally not so targeted and attract both women and men. From all of that I believe that women are not inherently disinterested in contributing to Wikipedia. However, these events do not seem to create ongoing editors (whether female or male) and this experience is not unique. A recent survey by the foundation found that this is the case all over the world. Generally, the one-event approach to edit training isnt sufficient. Greater success seems to come from regular events usually in a university/college setting, but regular events are a challenge to resource with volunteers (we have other things that have to be done in our lives). Interestingly, most of the people who currently attend our sessions are middle aged and older. Many struggle with the markup; I hope the visual editor will address some of that problem. So I think we need to look at diversity in terms of age as well as gender. But I dont think outreach is really the answer because it cannot be done at the necessary scale. Its not that we need to have a team of mentors, we need everyone to be willing to help one another.
D. One thing I learn from our outreach is that many of the newbies (male and female) have unpleasant experiences even during the outreach events as well as soon afterwards. Their edits are reverted (for what seems to me to be no justifiable reason), new articles being speedily deleted or splashed with messages about policies they dont know about and dont comprehend, or left in an eternal limbo of rejection in Article for Creation. These folks are all good faith and they are all newcomers but the policies of assume good faith and dont bite the newbies are completely ignored. We have many editors who are very aggressive. I have no idea if they are just angry with the world as a whole, or actually enjoy bullying the newbies. While obviously there are benefits to a culture of mentoring, even when I am in hand-holding edit-training mode (about as mentoring as it gets and I provide my contact details off-wiki as well as on-wiki for any follow-up), its difficult for me to justify to them why the newbies edits are being undone because the edits simply arent that bad. The situation makes me very angry. It is not as if it is the same small pool of editors creating these problems where maybe one could try to take action against them. It seems that we have such a huge pool of aggressive editors that our newbies will randomly attract the attention of one of them. (Or it may be that some bullying personalities are actively on the lookout for victims and newbies are a soft target).
So, all in all, I think if we need to go back to first principles the encyclopaedia anyone can edit and see that the aggressive nature of the community is working against this intention and seek to curb that aggression. I think curbing the aggression would result in more editors both male and female. So in that light, I would have to say that I find the ArbCom decision distressing as it appears to acknowledge and reinforce that the aggressive culture is both dominant and should continue to be so.
Kerry
Just a gentle reminder..that the work we did evaluating edit-a-thons and workshops when I worked at WMF showed that they do not retain new editors.[1]
They're good for getting people aware about Wikipedia - and people do edit while they are at the event, but, newer editors rarely edit AFTER the event, that is until the next event happens....so they aren't probably the magic way to solve the gender gap. Even those that involve academics, etc. I even evaluated my own edit-a-thons that I had implemented and saw the same trend, much to my dismay.
However, providing quality mechanisms of education, outreach, and help can. We see that with the Teahouse.
WMF told me a while ago they weren't going to invest in surveys, programming, etc and that it was up to the chapters and the "community" to take the initiative and be proactive. That was one of the biggest challenges of my fellowship - while I worked on two successful projects (Teahouse/WWC) and am very proud to have done that, I was really sad that more research and direct outreach was not going to be implemented. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I was broken hearted that I wasn't going to do more direct outreach to groups, institutions, and so forth. If we were able to make womencentric/diversity events part of institutional change internationally I think we could have seen a larger impact - like what GLAM-Wiki did. People go around and preach the gospel internationally and now GLAM-Wiki is almost old news.. lots of people are doing it...
(Of course, WMF now invests in surveys and so forth via the Individual Engagement Grants)
I wonder if having a chapter implement a survey for a specific language Wikipedia or something would work? When I did my 2011 survey I did it on my own, without asking anyone's permission. Now it seems everyone wants to control who investigates what, but, being a community member helped - I'm not some scientist from outside trying to put a microscope on a bunch of Wikipedians...because I am one.
But, these ongoing mass-improvement and participatory projects by women come and go based on the month ("oh it's women' history month...get out the laptops and snacks!") and who is organizing. It's becoming more common - but, we still aren't hearing about women getting together or lot lots of women regularly editing. I still believe, based on Sue's thoughts, that not every woman is going to want to edit Wikipedia on a regular basis outside an event - just like not every man will. Some humans just aren't built to enjoy it like we all do...
Sarah
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2013/Ed... and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Case_studies/WWHM
-Sarah
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Tim Davenport shoehutch@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to Kerry Raymond's post...
QUANTIFICATION
If "all the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10%" but there are anecdotes of a significant undercount from Teahouse volunteers and such and if female participation at Wikimania approaches one-third, would that not seem to fortify my point that there is a need for reexamination of the magnitude of the gender gap? What is the exact magnitude of the female undercount (or the male overcount)?
This does not even bring up the matter of dynamics — is the gender disparity changing over time, and if so, which direction is it moving?
There is only one way to find this out: study, study, study, survey, survey, survey...
That WMF has its own editor gender data from 2012 that it is not releasing, as has been intimated, is annoying. Still: why is the GGTF waiting for San Francisco at all? Why is quantification and surveying not a vital part of the task force's mission?
That there is an editorial gender gap is beyond dispute. But how big is it really and how is it changing over time?
PROACTIVE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
So if edit-a-thons don't work, as you indicate, why is the WMF still spending money on them? Is it mere symbolism?
I have noted from working with a college class at WP that short-term class assignments don't seem to create long-term Wikipedians. Students being students, they slam out the minimum required right before deadline and move along with their lives. I don't know what does create long-term content people, other than a passion about SOMETHING and a desire to share the information. Vandal fighters and quality control people may have a different motivation.
Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that there is NOTHING that can be done proactively to pick the needles out of the haystack — that it is impossible for any bureaucratic entity to identify and activate the small fraction of 1% of people that will eventually become long-term Wikipedia volunteers.
This would mean that the "needles" are going to self-identify by registering at WP and beginning work under their own volition. Therefore, logically, primary attention should be focused on identifying and cultivating "new editors" every day, nurturing the newbies as they start to navigate the technical and cultural learning curves. In which case, Ms. Stierch's "Teahouse" concept is 100% right on the money.
And that's where the gender gap can be addressed, by making sure that every effort is made to teach and acclimate female newcomers in particular.
As for edit-a-thons and outreach recruiting, I personally believe that any recruitment that is not focused on teachers and academics will probably not produce lasting results. I'm also pretty well convinced that long term Wikipedians are made one at a time.
Tim Davenport "Carrite" on WP Corvallis, OR
=========
Kerry Raymond wrote:
A. All the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10% plus or minus a few percent. Of course, it is possible that in all of the studies the women are choosing not to self-identify. It is an inherent difficulty in any study if people choose to not reveal information. But we know women make up large proportions of social media users, so if women’s participation in Wikipedia is actually higher than studies show due to reluctance to self-identify, it begs the question of why they are so unwilling to self-identify in the content of Wikipedia but not in other contexts. Either way, it points to some problem. The last Wikimania recently released data that does show a higher level of female participation, about 1 in 3, I think. It would be interesting to see how the male/female numbers break down across the various types of attendees, e.g. WMF staff, Chapter members, event organisers, etc. My suspicion is that women are in higher proportion among staffers, chapters, etc and this skews the Wikimania participation. I don’t know how scholarships are awarded and whether women are at any advantage in that process.
B. A very interesting research paperhttp://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf shows that women are less likely to survive the newbie stage than men. But, perhaps contrary to what many expected, their data does not suggest that women are more easily discouraged by being reverted (they show men and women’s survival rates in the face of reversion are similar) but that more women’s edits are reverted than men’s edits and this is the cause of higher attrition among women. This has caused me to wonder if women as newbies are more attracted to articles where the risk of reversion is higher perhaps because there are more policies to be considered (e.g. biographies of living people, noting that women are predominantly the purchasers of “celebrity” magazines which deal mostly in content related to living people). The paper does show that men and women edit in different areas (men are more likely to edit in geography and science for example) but the analysis is too high level to answer my question. The other inherent limitation in any study of newbies that there is nothing in the initial signup to Wikipedia that asks you about your gender (even optionally) so very few newbies are self-identifying as either male or female at that time. So, it’s actually very hard to study the non-surviving female newbies because you can’t find them. This often means our study of the experiences of newbies is based heavily on those who are still around later to be studied or surveyed which introduces survivor bias into the study. So this may be a consideration in relation to the findings of this paper. Interview studies keep pointing to women not liking the abrasive environment of Wikipedia. Civility is a part of that issue. Although I think it’s not so much about the use of specific words, but rather a general culture of aggression. The people who use the swear words are simply much easier to spot and hold up as examples of the broader problem than those who engage in equally aggressive behaviour but do so citing [[WP:Policy]] and use the undo-button.
C. In relation to pro-active recruitment, I do a lot of that here in Australia, edit training and edit-a-thons. While some of the edit-a-thons have targeted women participants and are therefore predominantly women, edit training events are generally not so targeted and attract both women and men. From all of that I believe that women are not inherently disinterested in contributing to Wikipedia. However, these events do not seem to create ongoing editors (whether female or male) and this experience is not unique. A recent survey by the foundation found that this is the case all over the world. Generally, the one-event approach to edit training isn’t sufficient. Greater success seems to come from regular events usually in a university/college setting, but regular events are a challenge to resource with volunteers (we have other things that have to be done in our lives). Interestingly, most of the people who currently attend our sessions are middle aged and older. Many struggle with the markup; I hope the visual editor will address some of that problem. So I think we need to look at diversity in terms of age as well as gender. But I don’t think outreach is really the answer because it cannot be done at the necessary scale. It’s not that we need to have a team of mentors, we need everyone to be willing to help one another.
D. One thing I learn from our outreach is that many of the newbies (male and female) have unpleasant experiences even during the outreach events as well as soon afterwards. Their edits are reverted (for what seems to me to be no justifiable reason), new articles being speedily deleted or splashed with messages about policies they don’t know about and don’t comprehend, or left in an eternal limbo of rejection in Article for Creation. These folks are all “good faith” and they are all newcomers but the policies of “assume good faith” and “don’t bite the newbies” are completely ignored. We have many editors who are very aggressive. I have no idea if they are just angry with the world as a whole, or actually enjoy bullying the newbies. While obviously there are benefits to a culture of mentoring, even when I am in hand-holding edit-training mode (about as mentoring as it gets and I provide my contact details off-wiki as well as on-wiki for any follow-up), it’s difficult for me to justify to them why the newbie’s edits are being undone because the edits simply aren’t that bad. The situation makes me very angry. It is not as if it is the same small pool of editors creating these problems where maybe one could try to take action against them. It seems that we have such a huge pool of aggressive editors that our newbies will randomly attract the attention of one of them. (Or it may be that some bullying personalities are actively on the lookout for victims and newbies are a soft target).
So, all in all, I think if we need to go back to first principles “the encyclopaedia anyone can edit” and see that the aggressive nature of the community is working against this intention and seek to curb that aggression. I think curbing the aggression would result in more editors both male and female. So in that light, I would have to say that I find the ArbCom decision distressing as it appears to acknowledge and reinforce that the aggressive culture is both dominant and should continue to be so.
Kerry
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
there is a lack of continuity studying editing behaviors, it is all one-off studies, not longitudinal they only know "editor decline" because it's an easy data dump. that said, there is some data from editations being gathered by eval & testing group.
we fund editathons because the primary goal is institutional engagement, not editor training. we do the training, because editing is a barrier to entry, (learning curve is too hard) a process with a 1% yield may need to be reinforced, since no process = 0% yield. there needs to be a culture change, beyond the "editors are a a dime a dozen" we can not rely on self-starters to become productive; the rate is not large enough to replace the leaving editors. too much needs to be done, for the existing numbers
until there is a change to the bitey culture, newbies will stay away, or not edit except at editathons. until then, we can organize circles of civility, and provide some positive reinforcement. we need to develop norms that may be outside of wiki process, i.e. no AfC, and push those that work, VE, teahouse, off wiki organization.
arbcom or WMF, are now saying the right words, but do not have a plan or the will to implement. the GGTF case tends to undermine the credibility of arbcom.
slow
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Just a gentle reminder..that the work we did evaluating edit-a-thons and workshops when I worked at WMF showed that they do not retain new editors.[1]
They're good for getting people aware about Wikipedia - and people do edit while they are at the event, but, newer editors rarely edit AFTER the event, that is until the next event happens....so they aren't probably the magic way to solve the gender gap. Even those that involve academics, etc. I even evaluated my own edit-a-thons that I had implemented and saw the same trend, much to my dismay.
However, providing quality mechanisms of education, outreach, and help can. We see that with the Teahouse.
WMF told me a while ago they weren't going to invest in surveys, programming, etc and that it was up to the chapters and the "community" to take the initiative and be proactive. That was one of the biggest challenges of my fellowship - while I worked on two successful projects (Teahouse/WWC) and am very proud to have done that, I was really sad that more research and direct outreach was not going to be implemented. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I was broken hearted that I wasn't going to do more direct outreach to groups, institutions, and so forth. If we were able to make womencentric/diversity events part of institutional change internationally I think we could have seen a larger impact - like what GLAM-Wiki did. People go around and preach the gospel internationally and now GLAM-Wiki is almost old news.. lots of people are doing it...
(Of course, WMF now invests in surveys and so forth via the Individual Engagement Grants)
I wonder if having a chapter implement a survey for a specific language Wikipedia or something would work? When I did my 2011 survey I did it on my own, without asking anyone's permission. Now it seems everyone wants to control who investigates what, but, being a community member helped - I'm not some scientist from outside trying to put a microscope on a bunch of Wikipedians...because I am one.
But, these ongoing mass-improvement and participatory projects by women come and go based on the month ("oh it's women' history month...get out the laptops and snacks!") and who is organizing. It's becoming more common - but, we still aren't hearing about women getting together or lot lots of women regularly editing. I still believe, based on Sue's thoughts, that not every woman is going to want to edit Wikipedia on a regular basis outside an event - just like not every man will. Some humans just aren't built to enjoy it like we all do...
Sarah
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2013/Ed... and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Case_studies/WWHM
-Sarah
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Tim Davenport shoehutch@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to Kerry Raymond's post...
QUANTIFICATION
If "all the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10%" but there are anecdotes of a significant undercount from Teahouse volunteers and such and if female participation at Wikimania approaches one-third, would that not seem to fortify my point that there is a need for reexamination of the magnitude of the gender gap? What is the exact magnitude of the female undercount (or the male overcount)?
This does not even bring up the matter of dynamics — is the gender disparity changing over time, and if so, which direction is it moving?
There is only one way to find this out: study, study, study, survey, survey, survey...
That WMF has its own editor gender data from 2012 that it is not releasing, as has been intimated, is annoying. Still: why is the GGTF waiting for San Francisco at all? Why is quantification and surveying not a vital part of the task force's mission?
That there is an editorial gender gap is beyond dispute. But how big is it really and how is it changing over time?
PROACTIVE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
So if edit-a-thons don't work, as you indicate, why is the WMF still spending money on them? Is it mere symbolism?
I have noted from working with a college class at WP that short-term class assignments don't seem to create long-term Wikipedians. Students being students, they slam out the minimum required right before deadline and move along with their lives. I don't know what does create long-term content people, other than a passion about SOMETHING and a desire to share the information. Vandal fighters and quality control people may have a different motivation.
Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that there is NOTHING that can be done proactively to pick the needles out of the haystack — that it is impossible for any bureaucratic entity to identify and activate the small fraction of 1% of people that will eventually become long-term Wikipedia volunteers.
This would mean that the "needles" are going to self-identify by registering at WP and beginning work under their own volition. Therefore, logically, primary attention should be focused on identifying and cultivating "new editors" every day, nurturing the newbies as they start to navigate the technical and cultural learning curves. In which case, Ms. Stierch's "Teahouse" concept is 100% right on the money.
And that's where the gender gap can be addressed, by making sure that every effort is made to teach and acclimate female newcomers in particular.
As for edit-a-thons and outreach recruiting, I personally believe that any recruitment that is not focused on teachers and academics will probably not produce lasting results. I'm also pretty well convinced that long term Wikipedians are made one at a time.
Tim Davenport "Carrite" on WP Corvallis, OR
=========
Kerry Raymond wrote:
A. All the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10% plus or minus a few percent. Of course, it is possible that in all of the studies the women are choosing not to self-identify. It is an inherent difficulty in any study if people choose to not reveal information. But we know women make up large proportions of social media users, so if women’s participation in Wikipedia is actually higher than studies show due to reluctance to self-identify, it begs the question of why they are so unwilling to self-identify in the content of Wikipedia but not in other contexts. Either way, it points to some problem. The last Wikimania recently released data that does show a higher level of female participation, about 1 in 3, I think. It would be interesting to see how the male/female numbers break down across the various types of attendees, e.g. WMF staff, Chapter members, event organisers, etc. My suspicion is that women are in higher proportion among staffers, chapters, etc and this skews the Wikimania participation. I don’t know how scholarships are awarded and whether women are at any advantage in that process.
B. A very interesting research paperhttp://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf shows that women are less likely to survive the newbie stage than men. But, perhaps contrary to what many expected, their data does not suggest that women are more easily discouraged by being reverted (they show men and women’s survival rates in the face of reversion are similar) but that more women’s edits are reverted than men’s edits and this is the cause of higher attrition among women. This has caused me to wonder if women as newbies are more attracted to articles where the risk of reversion is higher perhaps because there are more policies to be considered (e.g. biographies of living people, noting that women are predominantly the purchasers of “celebrity” magazines which deal mostly in content related to living people). The paper does show that men and women edit in different areas (men are more likely to edit in geography and science for example) but the analysis is too high level to answer my question. The other inherent limitation in any study of newbies that there is nothing in the initial signup to Wikipedia that asks you about your gender (even optionally) so very few newbies are self-identifying as either male or female at that time. So, it’s actually very hard to study the non-surviving female newbies because you can’t find them. This often means our study of the experiences of newbies is based heavily on those who are still around later to be studied or surveyed which introduces survivor bias into the study. So this may be a consideration in relation to the findings of this paper. Interview studies keep pointing to women not liking the abrasive environment of Wikipedia. Civility is a part of that issue. Although I think it’s not so much about the use of specific words, but rather a general culture of aggression. The people who use the swear words are simply much easier to spot and hold up as examples of the broader problem than those who engage in equally aggressive behaviour but do so citing [[WP:Policy]] and use the undo-button.
C. In relation to pro-active recruitment, I do a lot of that here in Australia, edit training and edit-a-thons. While some of the edit-a-thons have targeted women participants and are therefore predominantly women, edit training events are generally not so targeted and attract both women and men. From all of that I believe that women are not inherently disinterested in contributing to Wikipedia. However, these events do not seem to create ongoing editors (whether female or male) and this experience is not unique. A recent survey by the foundation found that this is the case all over the world. Generally, the one-event approach to edit training isn’t sufficient. Greater success seems to come from regular events usually in a university/college setting, but regular events are a challenge to resource with volunteers (we have other things that have to be done in our lives). Interestingly, most of the people who currently attend our sessions are middle aged and older. Many struggle with the markup; I hope the visual editor will address some of that problem. So I think we need to look at diversity in terms of age as well as gender. But I don’t think outreach is really the answer because it cannot be done at the necessary scale. It’s not that we need to have a team of mentors, we need everyone to be willing to help one another.
D. One thing I learn from our outreach is that many of the newbies (male and female) have unpleasant experiences even during the outreach events as well as soon afterwards. Their edits are reverted (for what seems to me to be no justifiable reason), new articles being speedily deleted or splashed with messages about policies they don’t know about and don’t comprehend, or left in an eternal limbo of rejection in Article for Creation. These folks are all “good faith” and they are all newcomers but the policies of “assume good faith” and “don’t bite the newbies” are completely ignored. We have many editors who are very aggressive. I have no idea if they are just angry with the world as a whole, or actually enjoy bullying the newbies. While obviously there are benefits to a culture of mentoring, even when I am in hand-holding edit-training mode (about as mentoring as it gets and I provide my contact details off-wiki as well as on-wiki for any follow-up), it’s difficult for me to justify to them why the newbie’s edits are being undone because the edits simply aren’t that bad. The situation makes me very angry. It is not as if it is the same small pool of editors creating these problems where maybe one could try to take action against them. It seems that we have such a huge pool of aggressive editors that our newbies will randomly attract the attention of one of them. (Or it may be that some bullying personalities are actively on the lookout for victims and newbies are a soft target).
So, all in all, I think if we need to go back to first principles “the encyclopaedia anyone can edit” and see that the aggressive nature of the community is working against this intention and seek to curb that aggression. I think curbing the aggression would result in more editors both male and female. So in that light, I would have to say that I find the ArbCom decision distressing as it appears to acknowledge and reinforce that the aggressive culture is both dominant and should continue to be so.
Kerry
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Sarah Stierch
Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
www.sarahstierch.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I agree with all Jim says here. I also think the incentive of regular editing is too low - why hangout on Wikipedia after a long day at work or school or caring for a child when you can space out with Netflix or do something with more incentive (I am knee deep in Wikidata right now....and have written more Yelp reviews than I have Wikipedia articles this year....with yelp I have elite status and get to go to free parties with free food and booze..and no one yells at me for typos....)
But I have been saying the same crap for 4 years now. So this broken record will go back to her open data sets...
:-)
Sarah On Dec 10, 2014 6:08 AM, "Jim Hayes" slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
there is a lack of continuity studying editing behaviors, it is all one-off studies, not longitudinal they only know "editor decline" because it's an easy data dump. that said, there is some data from editations being gathered by eval & testing group.
we fund editathons because the primary goal is institutional engagement, not editor training. we do the training, because editing is a barrier to entry, (learning curve is too hard) a process with a 1% yield may need to be reinforced, since no process = 0% yield. there needs to be a culture change, beyond the "editors are a a dime a dozen" we can not rely on self-starters to become productive; the rate is not large enough to replace the leaving editors. too much needs to be done, for the existing numbers
until there is a change to the bitey culture, newbies will stay away, or not edit except at editathons. until then, we can organize circles of civility, and provide some positive reinforcement. we need to develop norms that may be outside of wiki process, i.e. no AfC, and push those that work, VE, teahouse, off wiki organization.
arbcom or WMF, are now saying the right words, but do not have a plan or the will to implement. the GGTF case tends to undermine the credibility of arbcom.
slow
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Just a gentle reminder..that the work we did evaluating edit-a-thons and workshops when I worked at WMF showed that they do not retain new editors.[1]
They're good for getting people aware about Wikipedia - and people do edit while they are at the event, but, newer editors rarely edit AFTER the event, that is until the next event happens....so they aren't probably the magic way to solve the gender gap. Even those that involve academics, etc. I even evaluated my own edit-a-thons that I had implemented and saw the same trend, much to my dismay.
However, providing quality mechanisms of education, outreach, and help can. We see that with the Teahouse.
WMF told me a while ago they weren't going to invest in surveys, programming, etc and that it was up to the chapters and the "community" to take the initiative and be proactive. That was one of the biggest challenges of my fellowship - while I worked on two successful projects (Teahouse/WWC) and am very proud to have done that, I was really sad that more research and direct outreach was not going to be implemented. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I was broken hearted that I wasn't going to do more direct outreach to groups, institutions, and so forth. If we were able to make womencentric/diversity events part of institutional change internationally I think we could have seen a larger impact - like what GLAM-Wiki did. People go around and preach the gospel internationally and now GLAM-Wiki is almost old news.. lots of people are doing it...
(Of course, WMF now invests in surveys and so forth via the Individual Engagement Grants)
I wonder if having a chapter implement a survey for a specific language Wikipedia or something would work? When I did my 2011 survey I did it on my own, without asking anyone's permission. Now it seems everyone wants to control who investigates what, but, being a community member helped - I'm not some scientist from outside trying to put a microscope on a bunch of Wikipedians...because I am one.
But, these ongoing mass-improvement and participatory projects by women come and go based on the month ("oh it's women' history month...get out the laptops and snacks!") and who is organizing. It's becoming more common - but, we still aren't hearing about women getting together or lot lots of women regularly editing. I still believe, based on Sue's thoughts, that not every woman is going to want to edit Wikipedia on a regular basis outside an event - just like not every man will. Some humans just aren't built to enjoy it like we all do...
Sarah
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2013/Ed... and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Case_studies/WWHM
-Sarah
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Tim Davenport shoehutch@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to Kerry Raymond's post...
QUANTIFICATION
If "all the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10%" but there are anecdotes of a significant undercount from Teahouse volunteers and such and if female participation at Wikimania approaches one-third, would that not seem to fortify my point that there is a need for reexamination of the magnitude of the gender gap? What is the exact magnitude of the female undercount (or the male overcount)?
This does not even bring up the matter of dynamics — is the gender disparity changing over time, and if so, which direction is it moving?
There is only one way to find this out: study, study, study, survey, survey, survey...
That WMF has its own editor gender data from 2012 that it is not releasing, as has been intimated, is annoying. Still: why is the GGTF waiting for San Francisco at all? Why is quantification and surveying not a vital part of the task force's mission?
That there is an editorial gender gap is beyond dispute. But how big is it really and how is it changing over time?
PROACTIVE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
So if edit-a-thons don't work, as you indicate, why is the WMF still spending money on them? Is it mere symbolism?
I have noted from working with a college class at WP that short-term class assignments don't seem to create long-term Wikipedians. Students being students, they slam out the minimum required right before deadline and move along with their lives. I don't know what does create long-term content people, other than a passion about SOMETHING and a desire to share the information. Vandal fighters and quality control people may have a different motivation.
Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that there is NOTHING that can be done proactively to pick the needles out of the haystack — that it is impossible for any bureaucratic entity to identify and activate the small fraction of 1% of people that will eventually become long-term Wikipedia volunteers.
This would mean that the "needles" are going to self-identify by registering at WP and beginning work under their own volition. Therefore, logically, primary attention should be focused on identifying and cultivating "new editors" every day, nurturing the newbies as they start to navigate the technical and cultural learning curves. In which case, Ms. Stierch's "Teahouse" concept is 100% right on the money.
And that's where the gender gap can be addressed, by making sure that every effort is made to teach and acclimate female newcomers in particular.
As for edit-a-thons and outreach recruiting, I personally believe that any recruitment that is not focused on teachers and academics will probably not produce lasting results. I'm also pretty well convinced that long term Wikipedians are made one at a time.
Tim Davenport "Carrite" on WP Corvallis, OR
=========
Kerry Raymond wrote:
A. All the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10% plus or minus a few percent. Of course, it is possible that in all of the studies the women are choosing not to self-identify. It is an inherent difficulty in any study if people choose to not reveal information. But we know women make up large proportions of social media users, so if women’s participation in Wikipedia is actually higher than studies show due to reluctance to self-identify, it begs the question of why they are so unwilling to self-identify in the content of Wikipedia but not in other contexts. Either way, it points to some problem. The last Wikimania recently released data that does show a higher level of female participation, about 1 in 3, I think. It would be interesting to see how the male/female numbers break down across the various types of attendees, e.g. WMF staff, Chapter members, event organisers, etc. My suspicion is that women are in higher proportion among staffers, chapters, etc and this skews the Wikimania participation. I don’t know how scholarships are awarded and whether women are at any advantage in that process.
B. A very interesting research paperhttp://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf shows that women are less likely to survive the newbie stage than men. But, perhaps contrary to what many expected, their data does not suggest that women are more easily discouraged by being reverted (they show men and women’s survival rates in the face of reversion are similar) but that more women’s edits are reverted than men’s edits and this is the cause of higher attrition among women. This has caused me to wonder if women as newbies are more attracted to articles where the risk of reversion is higher perhaps because there are more policies to be considered (e.g. biographies of living people, noting that women are predominantly the purchasers of “celebrity” magazines which deal mostly in content related to living people). The paper does show that men and women edit in different areas (men are more likely to edit in geography and science for example) but the analysis is too high level to answer my question. The other inherent limitation in any study of newbies that there is nothing in the initial signup to Wikipedia that asks you about your gender (even optionally) so very few newbies are self-identifying as either male or female at that time. So, it’s actually very hard to study the non-surviving female newbies because you can’t find them. This often means our study of the experiences of newbies is based heavily on those who are still around later to be studied or surveyed which introduces survivor bias into the study. So this may be a consideration in relation to the findings of this paper. Interview studies keep pointing to women not liking the abrasive environment of Wikipedia. Civility is a part of that issue. Although I think it’s not so much about the use of specific words, but rather a general culture of aggression. The people who use the swear words are simply much easier to spot and hold up as examples of the broader problem than those who engage in equally aggressive behaviour but do so citing [[WP:Policy]] and use the undo-button.
C. In relation to pro-active recruitment, I do a lot of that here in Australia, edit training and edit-a-thons. While some of the edit-a-thons have targeted women participants and are therefore predominantly women, edit training events are generally not so targeted and attract both women and men. From all of that I believe that women are not inherently disinterested in contributing to Wikipedia. However, these events do not seem to create ongoing editors (whether female or male) and this experience is not unique. A recent survey by the foundation found that this is the case all over the world. Generally, the one-event approach to edit training isn’t sufficient. Greater success seems to come from regular events usually in a university/college setting, but regular events are a challenge to resource with volunteers (we have other things that have to be done in our lives). Interestingly, most of the people who currently attend our sessions are middle aged and older. Many struggle with the markup; I hope the visual editor will address some of that problem. So I think we need to look at diversity in terms of age as well as gender. But I don’t think outreach is really the answer because it cannot be done at the necessary scale. It’s not that we need to have a team of mentors, we need everyone to be willing to help one another.
D. One thing I learn from our outreach is that many of the newbies (male and female) have unpleasant experiences even during the outreach events as well as soon afterwards. Their edits are reverted (for what seems to me to be no justifiable reason), new articles being speedily deleted or splashed with messages about policies they don’t know about and don’t comprehend, or left in an eternal limbo of rejection in Article for Creation. These folks are all “good faith” and they are all newcomers but the policies of “assume good faith” and “don’t bite the newbies” are completely ignored. We have many editors who are very aggressive. I have no idea if they are just angry with the world as a whole, or actually enjoy bullying the newbies. While obviously there are benefits to a culture of mentoring, even when I am in hand-holding edit-training mode (about as mentoring as it gets and I provide my contact details off-wiki as well as on-wiki for any follow-up), it’s difficult for me to justify to them why the newbie’s edits are being undone because the edits simply aren’t that bad. The situation makes me very angry. It is not as if it is the same small pool of editors creating these problems where maybe one could try to take action against them. It seems that we have such a huge pool of aggressive editors that our newbies will randomly attract the attention of one of them. (Or it may be that some bullying personalities are actively on the lookout for victims and newbies are a soft target).
So, all in all, I think if we need to go back to first principles “the encyclopaedia anyone can edit” and see that the aggressive nature of the community is working against this intention and seek to curb that aggression. I think curbing the aggression would result in more editors both male and female. So in that light, I would have to say that I find the ArbCom decision distressing as it appears to acknowledge and reinforce that the aggressive culture is both dominant and should continue to be so.
Kerry
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Sarah Stierch
Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
www.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
i take the point that arbcom is overrated we see how difficult it is for them to enforce even site bans as in the case of betacommand
and the point that it takes away from talking about image uploads or infoboxes at editathons. it is optimistic to imagine that we can train newbies to get to 150 edits, and then show up for voting 6 months later.
however, we need to move from outrage, to plan, to action. low turnout provides a mechanism where we can gain control of what levers there are, aside from our civil community circles.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with all Jim says here. I also think the incentive of regular editing is too low - why hangout on Wikipedia after a long day at work or school or caring for a child when you can space out with Netflix or do something with more incentive (I am knee deep in Wikidata right now....and have written more Yelp reviews than I have Wikipedia articles this year....with yelp I have elite status and get to go to free parties with free food and booze..and no one yells at me for typos....)
But I have been saying the same crap for 4 years now. So this broken record will go back to her open data sets...
:-)
Sarah On Dec 10, 2014 6:08 AM, "Jim Hayes" slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
there is a lack of continuity studying editing behaviors, it is all one-off studies, not longitudinal they only know "editor decline" because it's an easy data dump. that said, there is some data from editations being gathered by eval & testing group.
we fund editathons because the primary goal is institutional engagement, not editor training. we do the training, because editing is a barrier to entry, (learning curve is too hard) a process with a 1% yield may need to be reinforced, since no process = 0% yield. there needs to be a culture change, beyond the "editors are a a dime a dozen" we can not rely on self-starters to become productive; the rate is not large enough to replace the leaving editors. too much needs to be done, for the existing numbers
until there is a change to the bitey culture, newbies will stay away, or not edit except at editathons. until then, we can organize circles of civility, and provide some positive reinforcement. we need to develop norms that may be outside of wiki process, i.e. no AfC, and push those that work, VE, teahouse, off wiki organization.
arbcom or WMF, are now saying the right words, but do not have a plan or the will to implement. the GGTF case tends to undermine the credibility of arbcom.
slow
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Just a gentle reminder..that the work we did evaluating edit-a-thons and workshops when I worked at WMF showed that they do not retain new editors.[1]
They're good for getting people aware about Wikipedia - and people do edit while they are at the event, but, newer editors rarely edit AFTER the event, that is until the next event happens....so they aren't probably the magic way to solve the gender gap. Even those that involve academics, etc. I even evaluated my own edit-a-thons that I had implemented and saw the same trend, much to my dismay.
However, providing quality mechanisms of education, outreach, and help can. We see that with the Teahouse.
WMF told me a while ago they weren't going to invest in surveys, programming, etc and that it was up to the chapters and the "community" to take the initiative and be proactive. That was one of the biggest challenges of my fellowship - while I worked on two successful projects (Teahouse/WWC) and am very proud to have done that, I was really sad that more research and direct outreach was not going to be implemented. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I was broken hearted that I wasn't going to do more direct outreach to groups, institutions, and so forth. If we were able to make womencentric/diversity events part of institutional change internationally I think we could have seen a larger impact - like what GLAM-Wiki did. People go around and preach the gospel internationally and now GLAM-Wiki is almost old news.. lots of people are doing it...
(Of course, WMF now invests in surveys and so forth via the Individual Engagement Grants)
I wonder if having a chapter implement a survey for a specific language Wikipedia or something would work? When I did my 2011 survey I did it on my own, without asking anyone's permission. Now it seems everyone wants to control who investigates what, but, being a community member helped - I'm not some scientist from outside trying to put a microscope on a bunch of Wikipedians...because I am one.
But, these ongoing mass-improvement and participatory projects by women come and go based on the month ("oh it's women' history month...get out the laptops and snacks!") and who is organizing. It's becoming more common - but, we still aren't hearing about women getting together or lot lots of women regularly editing. I still believe, based on Sue's thoughts, that not every woman is going to want to edit Wikipedia on a regular basis outside an event - just like not every man will. Some humans just aren't built to enjoy it like we all do...
Sarah
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2013/Ed... and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Case_studies/WWHM
-Sarah
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Tim Davenport shoehutch@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to Kerry Raymond's post...
QUANTIFICATION
If "all the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10%" but there are anecdotes of a significant undercount from Teahouse volunteers and such and if female participation at Wikimania approaches one-third, would that not seem to fortify my point that there is a need for reexamination of the magnitude of the gender gap? What is the exact magnitude of the female undercount (or the male overcount)?
This does not even bring up the matter of dynamics — is the gender disparity changing over time, and if so, which direction is it moving?
There is only one way to find this out: study, study, study, survey, survey, survey...
That WMF has its own editor gender data from 2012 that it is not releasing, as has been intimated, is annoying. Still: why is the GGTF waiting for San Francisco at all? Why is quantification and surveying not a vital part of the task force's mission?
That there is an editorial gender gap is beyond dispute. But how big is it really and how is it changing over time?
PROACTIVE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
So if edit-a-thons don't work, as you indicate, why is the WMF still spending money on them? Is it mere symbolism?
I have noted from working with a college class at WP that short-term class assignments don't seem to create long-term Wikipedians. Students being students, they slam out the minimum required right before deadline and move along with their lives. I don't know what does create long-term content people, other than a passion about SOMETHING and a desire to share the information. Vandal fighters and quality control people may have a different motivation.
Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that there is NOTHING that can be done proactively to pick the needles out of the haystack — that it is impossible for any bureaucratic entity to identify and activate the small fraction of 1% of people that will eventually become long-term Wikipedia volunteers.
This would mean that the "needles" are going to self-identify by registering at WP and beginning work under their own volition. Therefore, logically, primary attention should be focused on identifying and cultivating "new editors" every day, nurturing the newbies as they start to navigate the technical and cultural learning curves. In which case, Ms. Stierch's "Teahouse" concept is 100% right on the money.
And that's where the gender gap can be addressed, by making sure that every effort is made to teach and acclimate female newcomers in particular.
As for edit-a-thons and outreach recruiting, I personally believe that any recruitment that is not focused on teachers and academics will probably not produce lasting results. I'm also pretty well convinced that long term Wikipedians are made one at a time.
Tim Davenport "Carrite" on WP Corvallis, OR
=========
Kerry Raymond wrote:
A. All the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10% plus or minus a few percent. Of course, it is possible that in all of the studies the women are choosing not to self-identify. It is an inherent difficulty in any study if people choose to not reveal information. But we know women make up large proportions of social media users, so if women’s participation in Wikipedia is actually higher than studies show due to reluctance to self-identify, it begs the question of why they are so unwilling to self-identify in the content of Wikipedia but not in other contexts. Either way, it points to some problem. The last Wikimania recently released data that does show a higher level of female participation, about 1 in 3, I think. It would be interesting to see how the male/female numbers break down across the various types of attendees, e.g. WMF staff, Chapter members, event organisers, etc. My suspicion is that women are in higher proportion among staffers, chapters, etc and this skews the Wikimania participation. I don’t know how scholarships are awarded and whether women are at any advantage in that process.
B. A very interesting research paperhttp://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf shows that women are less likely to survive the newbie stage than men. But, perhaps contrary to what many expected, their data does not suggest that women are more easily discouraged by being reverted (they show men and women’s survival rates in the face of reversion are similar) but that more women’s edits are reverted than men’s edits and this is the cause of higher attrition among women. This has caused me to wonder if women as newbies are more attracted to articles where the risk of reversion is higher perhaps because there are more policies to be considered (e.g. biographies of living people, noting that women are predominantly the purchasers of “celebrity” magazines which deal mostly in content related to living people). The paper does show that men and women edit in different areas (men are more likely to edit in geography and science for example) but the analysis is too high level to answer my question. The other inherent limitation in any study of newbies that there is nothing in the initial signup to Wikipedia that asks you about your gender (even optionally) so very few newbies are self-identifying as either male or female at that time. So, it’s actually very hard to study the non-surviving female newbies because you can’t find them. This often means our study of the experiences of newbies is based heavily on those who are still around later to be studied or surveyed which introduces survivor bias into the study. So this may be a consideration in relation to the findings of this paper. Interview studies keep pointing to women not liking the abrasive environment of Wikipedia. Civility is a part of that issue. Although I think it’s not so much about the use of specific words, but rather a general culture of aggression. The people who use the swear words are simply much easier to spot and hold up as examples of the broader problem than those who engage in equally aggressive behaviour but do so citing [[WP:Policy]] and use the undo-button.
C. In relation to pro-active recruitment, I do a lot of that here in Australia, edit training and edit-a-thons. While some of the edit-a-thons have targeted women participants and are therefore predominantly women, edit training events are generally not so targeted and attract both women and men. From all of that I believe that women are not inherently disinterested in contributing to Wikipedia. However, these events do not seem to create ongoing editors (whether female or male) and this experience is not unique. A recent survey by the foundation found that this is the case all over the world. Generally, the one-event approach to edit training isn’t sufficient. Greater success seems to come from regular events usually in a university/college setting, but regular events are a challenge to resource with volunteers (we have other things that have to be done in our lives). Interestingly, most of the people who currently attend our sessions are middle aged and older. Many struggle with the markup; I hope the visual editor will address some of that problem. So I think we need to look at diversity in terms of age as well as gender. But I don’t think outreach is really the answer because it cannot be done at the necessary scale. It’s not that we need to have a team of mentors, we need everyone to be willing to help one another.
D. One thing I learn from our outreach is that many of the newbies (male and female) have unpleasant experiences even during the outreach events as well as soon afterwards. Their edits are reverted (for what seems to me to be no justifiable reason), new articles being speedily deleted or splashed with messages about policies they don’t know about and don’t comprehend, or left in an eternal limbo of rejection in Article for Creation. These folks are all “good faith” and they are all newcomers but the policies of “assume good faith” and “don’t bite the newbies” are completely ignored. We have many editors who are very aggressive. I have no idea if they are just angry with the world as a whole, or actually enjoy bullying the newbies. While obviously there are benefits to a culture of mentoring, even when I am in hand-holding edit-training mode (about as mentoring as it gets and I provide my contact details off-wiki as well as on-wiki for any follow-up), it’s difficult for me to justify to them why the newbie’s edits are being undone because the edits simply aren’t that bad. The situation makes me very angry. It is not as if it is the same small pool of editors creating these problems where maybe one could try to take action against them. It seems that we have such a huge pool of aggressive editors that our newbies will randomly attract the attention of one of them. (Or it may be that some bullying personalities are actively on the lookout for victims and newbies are a soft target).
So, all in all, I think if we need to go back to first principles “the encyclopaedia anyone can edit” and see that the aggressive nature of the community is working against this intention and seek to curb that aggression. I think curbing the aggression would result in more editors both male and female. So in that light, I would have to say that I find the ArbCom decision distressing as it appears to acknowledge and reinforce that the aggressive culture is both dominant and should continue to be so.
Kerry
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Sarah Stierch
Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
www.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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
While I would continue to oppose the concept of a "slate" of candidates regardless of what "slate" they were representing (and I am fairly certain that the wider community would find it very inappropriate, too, having deprecated slates from Day One) I think there is some value in trying to recruit quality candidates for the Arbitration Committee. This year not a single woman ran for a seat - at a few points during my own tenure, which ended only last year, we had three women on the committee.
Risker/Anne
On 10 December 2014 at 11:53, Jim Hayes slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
i take the point that arbcom is overrated we see how difficult it is for them to enforce even site bans as in the case of betacommand
and the point that it takes away from talking about image uploads or infoboxes at editathons. it is optimistic to imagine that we can train newbies to get to 150 edits, and then show up for voting 6 months later.
however, we need to move from outrage, to plan, to action. low turnout provides a mechanism where we can gain control of what levers there are, aside from our civil community circles.
On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:31 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with all Jim says here. I also think the incentive of regular editing is too low - why hangout on Wikipedia after a long day at work or school or caring for a child when you can space out with Netflix or do something with more incentive (I am knee deep in Wikidata right now....and have written more Yelp reviews than I have Wikipedia articles this year....with yelp I have elite status and get to go to free parties with free food and booze..and no one yells at me for typos....)
But I have been saying the same crap for 4 years now. So this broken record will go back to her open data sets...
:-)
Sarah On Dec 10, 2014 6:08 AM, "Jim Hayes" slowking4@gmail.com wrote:
there is a lack of continuity studying editing behaviors, it is all one-off studies, not longitudinal they only know "editor decline" because it's an easy data dump. that said, there is some data from editations being gathered by eval & testing group.
we fund editathons because the primary goal is institutional engagement, not editor training. we do the training, because editing is a barrier to entry, (learning curve is too hard) a process with a 1% yield may need to be reinforced, since no process = 0% yield. there needs to be a culture change, beyond the "editors are a a dime a dozen" we can not rely on self-starters to become productive; the rate is not large enough to replace the leaving editors. too much needs to be done, for the existing numbers
until there is a change to the bitey culture, newbies will stay away, or not edit except at editathons. until then, we can organize circles of civility, and provide some positive reinforcement. we need to develop norms that may be outside of wiki process, i.e. no AfC, and push those that work, VE, teahouse, off wiki organization.
arbcom or WMF, are now saying the right words, but do not have a plan or the will to implement. the GGTF case tends to undermine the credibility of arbcom.
slow
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 12:48 PM, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Just a gentle reminder..that the work we did evaluating edit-a-thons and workshops when I worked at WMF showed that they do not retain new editors.[1]
They're good for getting people aware about Wikipedia - and people do edit while they are at the event, but, newer editors rarely edit AFTER the event, that is until the next event happens....so they aren't probably the magic way to solve the gender gap. Even those that involve academics, etc. I even evaluated my own edit-a-thons that I had implemented and saw the same trend, much to my dismay.
However, providing quality mechanisms of education, outreach, and help can. We see that with the Teahouse.
WMF told me a while ago they weren't going to invest in surveys, programming, etc and that it was up to the chapters and the "community" to take the initiative and be proactive. That was one of the biggest challenges of my fellowship - while I worked on two successful projects (Teahouse/WWC) and am very proud to have done that, I was really sad that more research and direct outreach was not going to be implemented. I've said it before and I'll say it again - I was broken hearted that I wasn't going to do more direct outreach to groups, institutions, and so forth. If we were able to make womencentric/diversity events part of institutional change internationally I think we could have seen a larger impact - like what GLAM-Wiki did. People go around and preach the gospel internationally and now GLAM-Wiki is almost old news.. lots of people are doing it...
(Of course, WMF now invests in surveys and so forth via the Individual Engagement Grants)
I wonder if having a chapter implement a survey for a specific language Wikipedia or something would work? When I did my 2011 survey I did it on my own, without asking anyone's permission. Now it seems everyone wants to control who investigates what, but, being a community member helped - I'm not some scientist from outside trying to put a microscope on a bunch of Wikipedians...because I am one.
But, these ongoing mass-improvement and participatory projects by women come and go based on the month ("oh it's women' history month...get out the laptops and snacks!") and who is organizing. It's becoming more common - but, we still aren't hearing about women getting together or lot lots of women regularly editing. I still believe, based on Sue's thoughts, that not every woman is going to want to edit Wikipedia on a regular basis outside an event - just like not every man will. Some humans just aren't built to enjoy it like we all do...
Sarah
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Evaluation_reports/2013/Ed... and https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Case_studies/WWHM
-Sarah
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 9:34 AM, Tim Davenport shoehutch@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to Kerry Raymond's post...
QUANTIFICATION
If "all the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10%" but there are anecdotes of a significant undercount from Teahouse volunteers and such and if female participation at Wikimania approaches one-third, would that not seem to fortify my point that there is a need for reexamination of the magnitude of the gender gap? What is the exact magnitude of the female undercount (or the male overcount)?
This does not even bring up the matter of dynamics — is the gender disparity changing over time, and if so, which direction is it moving?
There is only one way to find this out: study, study, study, survey, survey, survey...
That WMF has its own editor gender data from 2012 that it is not releasing, as has been intimated, is annoying. Still: why is the GGTF waiting for San Francisco at all? Why is quantification and surveying not a vital part of the task force's mission?
That there is an editorial gender gap is beyond dispute. But how big is it really and how is it changing over time?
PROACTIVE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
So if edit-a-thons don't work, as you indicate, why is the WMF still spending money on them? Is it mere symbolism?
I have noted from working with a college class at WP that short-term class assignments don't seem to create long-term Wikipedians. Students being students, they slam out the minimum required right before deadline and move along with their lives. I don't know what does create long-term content people, other than a passion about SOMETHING and a desire to share the information. Vandal fighters and quality control people may have a different motivation.
Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that there is NOTHING that can be done proactively to pick the needles out of the haystack — that it is impossible for any bureaucratic entity to identify and activate the small fraction of 1% of people that will eventually become long-term Wikipedia volunteers.
This would mean that the "needles" are going to self-identify by registering at WP and beginning work under their own volition. Therefore, logically, primary attention should be focused on identifying and cultivating "new editors" every day, nurturing the newbies as they start to navigate the technical and cultural learning curves. In which case, Ms. Stierch's "Teahouse" concept is 100% right on the money.
And that's where the gender gap can be addressed, by making sure that every effort is made to teach and acclimate female newcomers in particular.
As for edit-a-thons and outreach recruiting, I personally believe that any recruitment that is not focused on teachers and academics will probably not produce lasting results. I'm also pretty well convinced that long term Wikipedians are made one at a time.
Tim Davenport "Carrite" on WP Corvallis, OR
=========
Kerry Raymond wrote:
A. All the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10% plus or minus a few percent. Of course, it is possible that in all of the studies the women are choosing not to self-identify. It is an inherent difficulty in any study if people choose to not reveal information. But we know women make up large proportions of social media users, so if women’s participation in Wikipedia is actually higher than studies show due to reluctance to self-identify, it begs the question of why they are so unwilling to self-identify in the content of Wikipedia but not in other contexts. Either way, it points to some problem. The last Wikimania recently released data that does show a higher level of female participation, about 1 in 3, I think. It would be interesting to see how the male/female numbers break down across the various types of attendees, e.g. WMF staff, Chapter members, event organisers, etc. My suspicion is that women are in higher proportion among staffers, chapters, etc and this skews the Wikimania participation. I don’t know how scholarships are awarded and whether women are at any advantage in that process.
B. A very interesting research paperhttp://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf shows that women are less likely to survive the newbie stage than men. But, perhaps contrary to what many expected, their data does not suggest that women are more easily discouraged by being reverted (they show men and women’s survival rates in the face of reversion are similar) but that more women’s edits are reverted than men’s edits and this is the cause of higher attrition among women. This has caused me to wonder if women as newbies are more attracted to articles where the risk of reversion is higher perhaps because there are more policies to be considered (e.g. biographies of living people, noting that women are predominantly the purchasers of “celebrity” magazines which deal mostly in content related to living people). The paper does show that men and women edit in different areas (men are more likely to edit in geography and science for example) but the analysis is too high level to answer my question. The other inherent limitation in any study of newbies that there is nothing in the initial signup to Wikipedia that asks you about your gender (even optionally) so very few newbies are self-identifying as either male or female at that time. So, it’s actually very hard to study the non-surviving female newbies because you can’t find them. This often means our study of the experiences of newbies is based heavily on those who are still around later to be studied or surveyed which introduces survivor bias into the study. So this may be a consideration in relation to the findings of this paper. Interview studies keep pointing to women not liking the abrasive environment of Wikipedia. Civility is a part of that issue. Although I think it’s not so much about the use of specific words, but rather a general culture of aggression. The people who use the swear words are simply much easier to spot and hold up as examples of the broader problem than those who engage in equally aggressive behaviour but do so citing [[WP:Policy]] and use the undo-button.
C. In relation to pro-active recruitment, I do a lot of that here in Australia, edit training and edit-a-thons. While some of the edit-a-thons have targeted women participants and are therefore predominantly women, edit training events are generally not so targeted and attract both women and men. From all of that I believe that women are not inherently disinterested in contributing to Wikipedia. However, these events do not seem to create ongoing editors (whether female or male) and this experience is not unique. A recent survey by the foundation found that this is the case all over the world. Generally, the one-event approach to edit training isn’t sufficient. Greater success seems to come from regular events usually in a university/college setting, but regular events are a challenge to resource with volunteers (we have other things that have to be done in our lives). Interestingly, most of the people who currently attend our sessions are middle aged and older. Many struggle with the markup; I hope the visual editor will address some of that problem. So I think we need to look at diversity in terms of age as well as gender. But I don’t think outreach is really the answer because it cannot be done at the necessary scale. It’s not that we need to have a team of mentors, we need everyone to be willing to help one another.
D. One thing I learn from our outreach is that many of the newbies (male and female) have unpleasant experiences even during the outreach events as well as soon afterwards. Their edits are reverted (for what seems to me to be no justifiable reason), new articles being speedily deleted or splashed with messages about policies they don’t know about and don’t comprehend, or left in an eternal limbo of rejection in Article for Creation. These folks are all “good faith” and they are all newcomers but the policies of “assume good faith” and “don’t bite the newbies” are completely ignored. We have many editors who are very aggressive. I have no idea if they are just angry with the world as a whole, or actually enjoy bullying the newbies. While obviously there are benefits to a culture of mentoring, even when I am in hand-holding edit-training mode (about as mentoring as it gets and I provide my contact details off-wiki as well as on-wiki for any follow-up), it’s difficult for me to justify to them why the newbie’s edits are being undone because the edits simply aren’t that bad. The situation makes me very angry. It is not as if it is the same small pool of editors creating these problems where maybe one could try to take action against them. It seems that we have such a huge pool of aggressive editors that our newbies will randomly attract the attention of one of them. (Or it may be that some bullying personalities are actively on the lookout for victims and newbies are a soft target).
So, all in all, I think if we need to go back to first principles “the encyclopaedia anyone can edit” and see that the aggressive nature of the community is working against this intention and seek to curb that aggression. I think curbing the aggression would result in more editors both male and female. So in that light, I would have to say that I find the ArbCom decision distressing as it appears to acknowledge and reinforce that the aggressive culture is both dominant and should continue to be so.
Kerry
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
--
Sarah Stierch
Diverse and engaging consulting for your organization.
www.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
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
For the record: the percentage of female editors on the Dutch Wikipedia is only 6%. In the Netherlands, edit-a-thons seem to be useless in terms of recruitment vehicles and many long-term Wikipedians seem to have a long-tail interest that they tend to spend most of their time editing.
The "eternal limbo of rejection" at the articles for creation queues is thankfully not a problem anywhere except the English Wikipedia. I don't think any other Wikipedia has anything like AfC, and I am continually surprised to see it hasn't been stopped yet on the English Wikipedia, where I believe it does way more harm than good.
The Dutch Wikipedia does suffer from an overwhelmingly confusing set of policies that only seem to make sense to a tiny committee of editors that have been on board since about 2005. No one has ever felt that anything more is necessary to explain them than the policy pages themselves, which are a confusing mess of contradictions.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Tim Davenport shoehutch@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to Kerry Raymond's post...
QUANTIFICATION
If "all the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10%" but there are anecdotes of a significant undercount from Teahouse volunteers and such and if female participation at Wikimania approaches one-third, would that not seem to fortify my point that there is a need for reexamination of the magnitude of the gender gap? What is the exact magnitude of the female undercount (or the male overcount)?
This does not even bring up the matter of dynamics — is the gender disparity changing over time, and if so, which direction is it moving?
There is only one way to find this out: study, study, study, survey, survey, survey...
That WMF has its own editor gender data from 2012 that it is not releasing, as has been intimated, is annoying. Still: why is the GGTF waiting for San Francisco at all? Why is quantification and surveying not a vital part of the task force's mission?
That there is an editorial gender gap is beyond dispute. But how big is it really and how is it changing over time?
PROACTIVE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
So if edit-a-thons don't work, as you indicate, why is the WMF still spending money on them? Is it mere symbolism?
I have noted from working with a college class at WP that short-term class assignments don't seem to create long-term Wikipedians. Students being students, they slam out the minimum required right before deadline and move along with their lives. I don't know what does create long-term content people, other than a passion about SOMETHING and a desire to share the information. Vandal fighters and quality control people may have a different motivation.
Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that there is NOTHING that can be done proactively to pick the needles out of the haystack — that it is impossible for any bureaucratic entity to identify and activate the small fraction of 1% of people that will eventually become long-term Wikipedia volunteers.
This would mean that the "needles" are going to self-identify by registering at WP and beginning work under their own volition. Therefore, logically, primary attention should be focused on identifying and cultivating "new editors" every day, nurturing the newbies as they start to navigate the technical and cultural learning curves. In which case, Ms. Stierch's "Teahouse" concept is 100% right on the money.
And that's where the gender gap can be addressed, by making sure that every effort is made to teach and acclimate female newcomers in particular.
As for edit-a-thons and outreach recruiting, I personally believe that any recruitment that is not focused on teachers and academics will probably not produce lasting results. I'm also pretty well convinced that long term Wikipedians are made one at a time.
Tim Davenport "Carrite" on WP Corvallis, OR
=========
Kerry Raymond wrote:
A. All the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10% plus or minus a few percent. Of course, it is possible that in all of the studies the women are choosing not to self-identify. It is an inherent difficulty in any study if people choose to not reveal information. But we know women make up large proportions of social media users, so if women’s participation in Wikipedia is actually higher than studies show due to reluctance to self-identify, it begs the question of why they are so unwilling to self-identify in the content of Wikipedia but not in other contexts. Either way, it points to some problem. The last Wikimania recently released data that does show a higher level of female participation, about 1 in 3, I think. It would be interesting to see how the male/female numbers break down across the various types of attendees, e.g. WMF staff, Chapter members, event organisers, etc. My suspicion is that women are in higher proportion among staffers, chapters, etc and this skews the Wikimania participation. I don’t know how scholarships are awarded and whether women are at any advantage in that process.
B. A very interesting research paperhttp://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf shows that women are less likely to survive the newbie stage than men. But, perhaps contrary to what many expected, their data does not suggest that women are more easily discouraged by being reverted (they show men and women’s survival rates in the face of reversion are similar) but that more women’s edits are reverted than men’s edits and this is the cause of higher attrition among women. This has caused me to wonder if women as newbies are more attracted to articles where the risk of reversion is higher perhaps because there are more policies to be considered (e.g. biographies of living people, noting that women are predominantly the purchasers of “celebrity” magazines which deal mostly in content related to living people). The paper does show that men and women edit in different areas (men are more likely to edit in geography and science for example) but the analysis is too high level to answer my question. The other inherent limitation in any study of newbies that there is nothing in the initial signup to Wikipedia that asks you about your gender (even optionally) so very few newbies are self-identifying as either male or female at that time. So, it’s actually very hard to study the non-surviving female newbies because you can’t find them. This often means our study of the experiences of newbies is based heavily on those who are still around later to be studied or surveyed which introduces survivor bias into the study. So this may be a consideration in relation to the findings of this paper. Interview studies keep pointing to women not liking the abrasive environment of Wikipedia. Civility is a part of that issue. Although I think it’s not so much about the use of specific words, but rather a general culture of aggression. The people who use the swear words are simply much easier to spot and hold up as examples of the broader problem than those who engage in equally aggressive behaviour but do so citing [[WP:Policy]] and use the undo-button.
C. In relation to pro-active recruitment, I do a lot of that here in Australia, edit training and edit-a-thons. While some of the edit-a-thons have targeted women participants and are therefore predominantly women, edit training events are generally not so targeted and attract both women and men. From all of that I believe that women are not inherently disinterested in contributing to Wikipedia. However, these events do not seem to create ongoing editors (whether female or male) and this experience is not unique. A recent survey by the foundation found that this is the case all over the world. Generally, the one-event approach to edit training isn’t sufficient. Greater success seems to come from regular events usually in a university/college setting, but regular events are a challenge to resource with volunteers (we have other things that have to be done in our lives). Interestingly, most of the people who currently attend our sessions are middle aged and older. Many struggle with the markup; I hope the visual editor will address some of that problem. So I think we need to look at diversity in terms of age as well as gender. But I don’t think outreach is really the answer because it cannot be done at the necessary scale. It’s not that we need to have a team of mentors, we need everyone to be willing to help one another.
D. One thing I learn from our outreach is that many of the newbies (male and female) have unpleasant experiences even during the outreach events as well as soon afterwards. Their edits are reverted (for what seems to me to be no justifiable reason), new articles being speedily deleted or splashed with messages about policies they don’t know about and don’t comprehend, or left in an eternal limbo of rejection in Article for Creation. These folks are all “good faith” and they are all newcomers but the policies of “assume good faith” and “don’t bite the newbies” are completely ignored. We have many editors who are very aggressive. I have no idea if they are just angry with the world as a whole, or actually enjoy bullying the newbies. While obviously there are benefits to a culture of mentoring, even when I am in hand-holding edit-training mode (about as mentoring as it gets and I provide my contact details off-wiki as well as on-wiki for any follow-up), it’s difficult for me to justify to them why the newbie’s edits are being undone because the edits simply aren’t that bad. The situation makes me very angry. It is not as if it is the same small pool of editors creating these problems where maybe one could try to take action against them. It seems that we have such a huge pool of aggressive editors that our newbies will randomly attract the attention of one of them. (Or it may be that some bullying personalities are actively on the lookout for victims and newbies are a soft target).
So, all in all, I think if we need to go back to first principles “the encyclopaedia anyone can edit” and see that the aggressive nature of the community is working against this intention and seek to curb that aggression. I think curbing the aggression would result in more editors both male and female. So in that light, I would have to say that I find the ArbCom decision distressing as it appears to acknowledge and reinforce that the aggressive culture is both dominant and should continue to be so.
Kerry
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Now that the Arbcom case has concluded and the punishments have been imposed, I just wanted to welcome Carolmooredc and Neotarf to the list of editors who have been banned from Wikipedia. I now its a hard pill to swallow, but all good editors end up here eventually if they stay long enough, so welcome to the club.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com wrote:
For the record: the percentage of female editors on the Dutch Wikipedia is only 6%. In the Netherlands, edit-a-thons seem to be useless in terms of recruitment vehicles and many long-term Wikipedians seem to have a long-tail interest that they tend to spend most of their time editing.
The "eternal limbo of rejection" at the articles for creation queues is thankfully not a problem anywhere except the English Wikipedia. I don't think any other Wikipedia has anything like AfC, and I am continually surprised to see it hasn't been stopped yet on the English Wikipedia, where I believe it does way more harm than good.
The Dutch Wikipedia does suffer from an overwhelmingly confusing set of policies that only seem to make sense to a tiny committee of editors that have been on board since about 2005. No one has ever felt that anything more is necessary to explain them than the policy pages themselves, which are a confusing mess of contradictions.
On Tue, Dec 2, 2014 at 6:34 PM, Tim Davenport shoehutch@gmail.com wrote:
In reply to Kerry Raymond's post...
QUANTIFICATION
If "all the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10%" but there are anecdotes of a significant undercount from Teahouse volunteers and such and if female participation at Wikimania approaches one-third, would that not seem to fortify my point that there is a need for reexamination of the magnitude of the gender gap? What is the exact magnitude of the female undercount (or the male overcount)?
This does not even bring up the matter of dynamics — is the gender disparity changing over time, and if so, which direction is it moving?
There is only one way to find this out: study, study, study, survey, survey, survey...
That WMF has its own editor gender data from 2012 that it is not releasing, as has been intimated, is annoying. Still: why is the GGTF waiting for San Francisco at all? Why is quantification and surveying not a vital part of the task force's mission?
That there is an editorial gender gap is beyond dispute. But how big is it really and how is it changing over time?
PROACTIVE RECRUITMENT AND RETENTION
So if edit-a-thons don't work, as you indicate, why is the WMF still spending money on them? Is it mere symbolism?
I have noted from working with a college class at WP that short-term class assignments don't seem to create long-term Wikipedians. Students being students, they slam out the minimum required right before deadline and move along with their lives. I don't know what does create long-term content people, other than a passion about SOMETHING and a desire to share the information. Vandal fighters and quality control people may have a different motivation.
Let's assume for the sake of the discussion that there is NOTHING that can be done proactively to pick the needles out of the haystack — that it is impossible for any bureaucratic entity to identify and activate the small fraction of 1% of people that will eventually become long-term Wikipedia volunteers.
This would mean that the "needles" are going to self-identify by registering at WP and beginning work under their own volition. Therefore, logically, primary attention should be focused on identifying and cultivating "new editors" every day, nurturing the newbies as they start to navigate the technical and cultural learning curves. In which case, Ms. Stierch's "Teahouse" concept is 100% right on the money.
And that's where the gender gap can be addressed, by making sure that every effort is made to teach and acclimate female newcomers in particular.
As for edit-a-thons and outreach recruiting, I personally believe that any recruitment that is not focused on teachers and academics will probably not produce lasting results. I'm also pretty well convinced that long term Wikipedians are made one at a time.
Tim Davenport "Carrite" on WP Corvallis, OR
=========
Kerry Raymond wrote:
A. All the studies on female participation come up with low percentages around 10% plus or minus a few percent. Of course, it is possible that in all of the studies the women are choosing not to self-identify. It is an inherent difficulty in any study if people choose to not reveal information. But we know women make up large proportions of social media users, so if women’s participation in Wikipedia is actually higher than studies show due to reluctance to self-identify, it begs the question of why they are so unwilling to self-identify in the content of Wikipedia but not in other contexts. Either way, it points to some problem. The last Wikimania recently released data that does show a higher level of female participation, about 1 in 3, I think. It would be interesting to see how the male/female numbers break down across the various types of attendees, e.g. WMF staff, Chapter members, event organisers, etc. My suspicion is that women are in higher proportion among staffers, chapters, etc and this skews the Wikimania participation. I don’t know how scholarships are awarded and whether women are at any advantage in that process.
B. A very interesting research paperhttp://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf shows that women are less likely to survive the newbie stage than men. But, perhaps contrary to what many expected, their data does not suggest that women are more easily discouraged by being reverted (they show men and women’s survival rates in the face of reversion are similar) but that more women’s edits are reverted than men’s edits and this is the cause of higher attrition among women. This has caused me to wonder if women as newbies are more attracted to articles where the risk of reversion is higher perhaps because there are more policies to be considered (e.g. biographies of living people, noting that women are predominantly the purchasers of “celebrity” magazines which deal mostly in content related to living people). The paper does show that men and women edit in different areas (men are more likely to edit in geography and science for example) but the analysis is too high level to answer my question. The other inherent limitation in any study of newbies that there is nothing in the initial signup to Wikipedia that asks you about your gender (even optionally) so very few newbies are self-identifying as either male or female at that time. So, it’s actually very hard to study the non-surviving female newbies because you can’t find them. This often means our study of the experiences of newbies is based heavily on those who are still around later to be studied or surveyed which introduces survivor bias into the study. So this may be a consideration in relation to the findings of this paper. Interview studies keep pointing to women not liking the abrasive environment of Wikipedia. Civility is a part of that issue. Although I think it’s not so much about the use of specific words, but rather a general culture of aggression. The people who use the swear words are simply much easier to spot and hold up as examples of the broader problem than those who engage in equally aggressive behaviour but do so citing [[WP:Policy]] and use the undo-button.
C. In relation to pro-active recruitment, I do a lot of that here in Australia, edit training and edit-a-thons. While some of the edit-a-thons have targeted women participants and are therefore predominantly women, edit training events are generally not so targeted and attract both women and men. From all of that I believe that women are not inherently disinterested in contributing to Wikipedia. However, these events do not seem to create ongoing editors (whether female or male) and this experience is not unique. A recent survey by the foundation found that this is the case all over the world. Generally, the one-event approach to edit training isn’t sufficient. Greater success seems to come from regular events usually in a university/college setting, but regular events are a challenge to resource with volunteers (we have other things that have to be done in our lives). Interestingly, most of the people who currently attend our sessions are middle aged and older. Many struggle with the markup; I hope the visual editor will address some of that problem. So I think we need to look at diversity in terms of age as well as gender. But I don’t think outreach is really the answer because it cannot be done at the necessary scale. It’s not that we need to have a team of mentors, we need everyone to be willing to help one another.
D. One thing I learn from our outreach is that many of the newbies (male and female) have unpleasant experiences even during the outreach events as well as soon afterwards. Their edits are reverted (for what seems to me to be no justifiable reason), new articles being speedily deleted or splashed with messages about policies they don’t know about and don’t comprehend, or left in an eternal limbo of rejection in Article for Creation. These folks are all “good faith” and they are all newcomers but the policies of “assume good faith” and “don’t bite the newbies” are completely ignored. We have many editors who are very aggressive. I have no idea if they are just angry with the world as a whole, or actually enjoy bullying the newbies. While obviously there are benefits to a culture of mentoring, even when I am in hand-holding edit-training mode (about as mentoring as it gets and I provide my contact details off-wiki as well as on-wiki for any follow-up), it’s difficult for me to justify to them why the newbie’s edits are being undone because the edits simply aren’t that bad. The situation makes me very angry. It is not as if it is the same small pool of editors creating these problems where maybe one could try to take action against them. It seems that we have such a huge pool of aggressive editors that our newbies will randomly attract the attention of one of them. (Or it may be that some bullying personalities are actively on the lookout for victims and newbies are a soft target).
So, all in all, I think if we need to go back to first principles “the encyclopaedia anyone can edit” and see that the aggressive nature of the community is working against this intention and seek to curb that aggression. I think curbing the aggression would result in more editors both male and female. So in that light, I would have to say that I find the ArbCom decision distressing as it appears to acknowledge and reinforce that the aggressive culture is both dominant and should continue to be so.
Kerry
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