At the end of this discussion is the query:
we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey. We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but no data.
What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after the survey ran?
Are there any results at all? Is a copy of the survey available?
--Thank you, Kathleen McCook
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 11:07 PM, George Herbert george.herbert@gmail.com wrote:
On the plus side, discretionary sanctions...
George William Herbert Sent from my iPhone
On Nov 26, 2014, at 7:36 AM, Andreas Kolbe jayen466@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Carol Moore dc carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
But thank you for the good comments below mine, but must reply to your introductory remarks...
On 11/26/2014 9:43 AM, Andreas Kolbe wrote:
... That's a slightly simplistic summary, eliding the fact that Eric C. is also very often non-toxic, and has a long history of collaborating in a very professional and respectful manner with many diverse women editors to bring a large number of articles to good or featured status.
**He still disrupted the GGTF with his friends in order to stop it having an influencing in increasing civility or harassment enforcement.
That's why I agree with Newyorkbrad that he should be topic-banned from the GGTF pages. But really, if you want to have a meaningful discussion of this, on-wiki is not the right place, as it is with so many of these issues. The signal-to-noise ratio is appalling, and the end result is a waste of time.
A good number of those women spoke up for him on the Proposed Decision talk page. And even more women took issue with the way the gender gap is often framed here.
*Women editors will have different views, but if the main reason they come is to support one or more males who call women cunts,
He didn't. I won't get into that whole long discussion here; all I had to say about this is on the proposed decision talk page, and anyone who is interested can read it up there.
sorry if they don't have much credibility.
By here you mean this email list or GGTF? If you study the GGTF timeline and archives you'll see that some of the most rediculous proposals were made by males and rejected, but thrown up as "typical" of what GGTF wanted; there were three editors there just to harass two women editors; the opponents kept knocking the project and everything said by good faith participants to the point supporters either stopped commenting or got angry and told them to quit it - over and over again.
I meant both here and at the GGTF. If you have a number of very capable women contributors – people who actually have contributed significant amounts of quality content – saying that they can't identify with the way the issue is being framed by the Foundation and those spearheading the gender gap effort, then not listening and entering a dialogue with those people is a missed opportunity.
Note also that when Eric spoke of alienating male contributors, this was in the specific context of affirmative actions (which even those proposing them warned carried a risk of provoking a backlash). Two arbitrators had the decency to oppose that finding of fact based on the omission of that context.
*Yeah, a male came up with a proposal that two males had to OK and revert of an (alleged) female editor. That didn't fly, but we kept hearing about it and had to thrash the arbitrators with diffs til they realized it was a strawman pushed by Corbett and crew. You didn't get the memo?
But the good news is if Corbett does it again, he's in trouble. I have predicted from the start I (and later Neotarf) would be the sacrificial lambs offered up to keep Corbett's supporters from going crazy if even the mildest of sanctions was imposed. (I've heard that ast time Corbett got a strong sanction several high profile admins quit, started petitions, all sorts of shenanigans to disrupt the project.) I still think that is so and told them so....
I am a supporter of both Eric and you, inasmuch as you're both spirited people and I didn't wish to see either of you site-banned.
The whole thing is quite a spectacular breakdown in communication. The term "Arbitration Committee" is really an egregious misnomer. They never actually arbitrate: all they do is punish.
If the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
Commiserations.
Best, Andreas
I'm using the meme "INSTITUTIONALIZED HARASSMENT AT WIKIPEDIA" - feel free to quote me...
CM _____________
I do think the arbitrators should revisit Newyorkbrad's idea of a GGTF topic ban for Eric. (Generally, Newyorkbrad's comments in this case were spot-on for me throughout.) I did find some of Eric's contributions to the GGTF pages were excessively argumentative and confrontational, and not helpful. But I am very glad he is not getting banned.
I do regret seeing the ban for Carol pass.
Again, I would encourage people to set up their own Gendergap discussion site and blog off-wiki ... and also to listen to those women who spoke up in the case who feel that the current framing of the Gendergap issue does not represent them.
And since I am posting here, let me remind everyone again that we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey. We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but no data.
What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after the survey ran?
It should be a really easy question to answer: x% female, y% male.
Best, Andreas
Gendergap mailing listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://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
Sorry if in aggravated state yesterday and ranting...
Anyway, as listed here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias...
The study's talk page has ongoing discussions of people being annoyed about this issue. Probably first place any updates will show up: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012
Unless announcement shows up first at: https://blog.wikimedia.org/
On 11/27/2014 8:11 AM, Kathleen McCook wrote:
At the end of this discussion is the query:
we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey. We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but no data. What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after the survey ran?Are there any results at all? Is a copy of the survey available?
--Thank you, Kathleen McCook
On Nov 27, 2014 9:55 AM, "Carol Moore dc" carolmooredc@verizon.net wrote:
The study's talk page has ongoing discussions of people being annoyed about this issue. Probably first place any updates will show up: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_2012
I wrote there:
See [http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/the-wikipedia-gender-gap-revisited Mako's study] which includes the initial numbers from before his changes. I thought the study results were already released by the time he did the study but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway at least there are numbers. But IMHO absolute numbers are not as important as change rates over time. (which has been the topic of debate among researchers not too long ago also) --~~~~
-Jeremy
P.S. haven't read the arbcom case or any of the onwiki discussion but I generally support points I've seen on these threads from Sarah Stierch.
P.P.S. Everyone who is having turkey, etc. today should enjoy it. :)
On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Jeremy Baron jeremy@tuxmachine.com wrote:
See [http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/the-wikipedia-gender-gap-revisited
Mako's study] which includes the initial numbers from before his changes. I thought the study results were already released by the time he did the study but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway at least there are numbers. But IMHO absolute numbers are not as important as change rates over time. (which has been the topic of debate among researchers not too long ago also) --~~~~
-Jeremy
Well, what we got in that study was a mathematical manipulation resulting in a convenient upwards adjustment of the 2010 UNU survey figures for female participation (from 12.6% to 16.1%), while the gender split of the Foundation's own 2012 survey was never published.
And since then, the WMF hasn't conducted any more editor surveys.
It's been two years: where are the figures, and where is the promised[1] data set[2]?
The longer this carries on, the more the matter lends itself to suspicions that the figures were buried, because they came out even worse than the 8.5% and 9% from the two 2011 editor surveys.
There is an easy way to counter such suspicions: publish the figures.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Surve... [2] http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/surveys/ (no sign of the 2012 data dump there at the time of writing)