Hi Laura,
Thanks for the reminding email.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could add some explanation why you are collecting this information, what you want to make clear. Because as I explained before to you privately (and I see nothing has changed) at least for the Netherlands the stats that have been put up are almost hilarious. Lots of percentages, but every Dutch person will be able to tell you that many of them are of no meaning (Ripuarian is not a language spoken at any significant level in the Netherlands, Zealandic is considered mainly a dialect and has 1 admin, of course there are no Dutch women in the enwiki arbcom, because to my best knowledge there are no Dutch people in there at all at this moment, and I would wonder why there are no Dutch female admins on the Portuguese Wikinews...) I am not sure if it is just me, but reading this page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/Netherlands ) I would almost think that this is a parody of something - I can't tell if it is the same in other countries.
I am sure your intentions are good though, so perhaps it would be helpful to state somewhere what kind of information you're looking for that is *really* informative, and get rid of the non-relevant parts? I would say that the semi-automated adding of information isn't exactly helpful in at least the Dutch case - again, I can't vouch for other countries. Some information *is* interesting (interest ratios on Facebook or other external websites) and it would be a waste if that gets discarded because of the irrelevance of the rest of the page.
Best regards,
Lodewijk
No dia 1 de Fevereiro de 2012 01:44, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.comescreveu:
Hi,
We're again asking people to help contribute to improving the national perspective on the involvement of women in their country. :) http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:WikiWomenCamp_-_women_perspective_by... a list of all the countries we have started pages about. These articles are far from complete and need extensive work to give a more accurate picture. :) At WikiWomenCamp, we plan to have all these perspectives published in a book, with a copy being given to a chapter or national representative from any country that substantially contributes to documenting the work in their country. If you don't send a representative, we'll see about sending your chapter a copy or a national representative in the post.
For the sake of some level of consistency, it would be great to have the following ten questions answered for each country:
- Is there a national chapter? If yes, what is the current and
historical representation of women on the country's board? 2. Has the chapter given out grants to its members or been the recipient of grants from the Wikimedia Foundaton? If yes, how many women were involved in these grants, in what roles and did the grants support women in terms of leadership, participation or content creation? 3. Are there meetups and conferences in the country? Are women involved in organizing them and do they attend these gatherings? 4. Are there pictures of women from the country involved with WMF projects and at WMF related events? Can you upload them and include them on the perspective page? 5. What is the state women's related content from your country on Wikipedia? What are female participation levels in your country as contributors and in leadership roles on Wikipedia? 6. What is the state women's related content from your country on Commons ? What are female participation levels in your country as contributors and in leadership roles on Commons? 7. What is the state women's related content from your country on Wikinews ? What are female participation levels in your country as contributors and in leadership roles on Wikinews? 8. What is the state women's related content from your country on Wikibooks ? What are female participation levels in your country as contributors and in leadership roles on Wikibooks? 9. What is the state women's related content from your country on Wikiversity ? What are female participation levels in your country as contributors and in leadership roles on Wikiversity? 10. What is the state women's related content from your country on other WMF projeects ? What are female participation levels in your country as contributors and in leadership roles on other WMF projeects ?
These questions are in no particular order. :) Please help. :)
-- twitter: purplepopple blog: ozziesport.com
cultural-partners mailing list cultural-partners@wikimedia.ch http://lists.wikimedia.ch/listinfo/cultural-partners
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 15:48, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
I am not sure if it is just me, but reading this page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/Netherlands ) I would almost think that this is a parody of something - I can't tell if it is the same in other countries.
I felt similar while reading India[1]. One wouldnt simply find any women's basketball club related articles at least till next decade when Basketball (AND) club level sport become active/notable enough in the country leave alone gendergap. Similar comment can be made for Wikiversity, leadership too. I agree with Lodewijk that templated information might not be really helpful in getting perspectives, atleast not this template. Searching India+women across projects is also a bad idea and is expected to produce numbers which would obviously be low, a Regex search might be better, (See AlexNewarticlesBot list[2] how WP:INDIA on enwp searches for India related content)
Can perspectives actually ask some of the active women editors / members to share their "perspectives" instead of having templated data? Literacy ratio, e-literacy ratio might be some good data points to add on the templated data.
//There are no women from this country who are administrators on incubator and no active women editors from this country. The project has few participants overall, with only 44 users identified as female and 516 identified as male.//
Can I know from where this data was taken? There are *quite a few* active women editors from the country, with ratios of men:women matching rest of world. (May be even better, since fewer men are active editors).
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/India [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AlexNewArtBot/India
Laura - Thanks for asking for more contributions. I was wondering what was going on, since the project has seemed a bit quiet lately! Glad to know it's catching steam again. I made some edits a few months ago to the US section. (See comments below)
On 2/1/12 5:18 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could add some explanation why you are collecting this information, what you want to make clear. Because as I explained before to you privately (and I see nothing has changed) at least for the Netherlands the stats that have been put up are almost hilarious. Lots of percentages, but every Dutch person will be able to tell you that many of them are of no meaning (Ripuarian is not a language spoken at any significant level in the Netherlands, Zealandic is considered mainly a dialect and has 1 admin, of course there are no Dutch women in the enwiki arbcom, because to my best knowledge there are no Dutch people in there at all at this moment, and I would wonder why there are no Dutch female admins on the Portuguese Wikinews...) I am not sure if it is just me, but reading this page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/Netherlands ) I would almost think that this is a parody of something - I can't tell if it is the same in other countries.
I've also been highly confused by these statistics. It confused me so much that I acted boldy and removed them from the United States section. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives#United_States When I started to see information on how there were no Portuguese women involved in Algerian Wikipedia I was like "why would there be? and is this information here?"
I rewrote the majority of the section to just discuss women's roles in the United States - at WMF, as fellows, as researchers, as Wikimedians and active editors, etc. I created a list of people who are active US Wikimedians who are known to be women (didn't want to make assumptions about anyone) and some of the cool things they've been doing. Of course, these are limited to people I know, so I hope others are added (as someone did me). I also removed the "US related on Wikipedia" in regards to the subject matter (which was added back). I wasn't really sure why netball would be featured because it's not popular in America at all, so to me it doesn't really tell us anything, but it's not popular. Same with roller derby. (But other women's sports aren't discussed?) So I guess if someone has interest in discussing American women's sports, this area has room for expansion, or IMHO removal. And the list of popular biographies makes sense - Amy Winehouse died when this data was retrieved and I'm sure her popularity has been replaced. And it's no surprise that "someone from Barbados" is in the top 10 - it's Rhianna, and same for Nicki Minaj (two of the most famous pop stars in the world, at least in the US.) I just don't' think this shows much about women who contribute to Wikipedia except that people of all genders like reading articles about pop stars and media frenzies.
I'm more curious about how women are active and what women are doing. Who are planning events, have those been successes? Are people being hired by Wiki companies? (Not just Wikimedia.) What is participation like regarding women and other Wiki websites? (This conference is about that right, not just Wikimedia?). Sadly I can't gather data on those, nor do I know how, but it would be cool to know what the most popular Wiki's are for women and so forth.
I am sure your intentions are good though, so perhaps it would be helpful to state somewhere what kind of information you're looking for that is *really* informative, and get rid of the non-relevant parts? I would say that the semi-automated adding of information isn't exactly helpful in at least the Dutch case - again, I can't vouch for other countries. Some information *is* interesting (interest ratios on Facebook or other external websites) and it would be a waste if that gets discarded because of the irrelevance of the rest of the page.
+1. I think this has really cool potential to focus on "original research" - just knowing who is doing what and sharing that information. I took the time on the US section to not only celebrate who is doing what, but, opportunities that women have been given in the movement in the US. I wanted people to see what women were doing in the United States, not what they /aren't/ doing. We already know the statistics are depressing about women's participating - so what are women doing to change that or to be a part of that?
Thanks Lodewijk and Srikanth for sharing your thoughts! I was beginning to think I was the only person who had these thoughts!
And thanks Laura for spearheading a unique and interesting opportunity to learn more about women around the world in the community. I hope people be bold and participate!
Sarah
Again, I would like to point that meta is a wiki and all of us have usernames there. So I would suggest all of you to *be bold *and correct what is not correct in your opinion. _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 13:18, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Laura - Thanks for asking for more contributions. I was wondering what was going on, since the project has seemed a bit quiet lately! Glad to know it's catching steam again. I made some edits a few months ago to the US section. (See comments below)
On 2/1/12 5:18 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could add some explanation why you are collecting this information, what you want to make clear. Because as I explained before to you privately (and I see nothing has changed) at least for the Netherlands the stats that have been put up are almost hilarious. Lots of percentages, but every Dutch person will be able to tell you that many of them are of no meaning (Ripuarian is not a language spoken at any significant level in the Netherlands, Zealandic is considered mainly a dialect and has 1 admin, of course there are no Dutch women in the enwiki arbcom, because to my best knowledge there are no Dutch people in there at all at this moment, and I would wonder why there are no Dutch female admins on the Portuguese Wikinews...) I am not sure if it is just me, but reading this page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/Netherlands ) I would almost think that this is a parody of something - I can't tell if it is the same in other countries.
I've also been highly confused by these statistics. It confused me so much that I acted boldy and removed them from the United States section. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives#United_States When I started to see information on how there were no Portuguese women involved in Algerian Wikipedia I was like "why would there be? and is this information here?"
I rewrote the majority of the section to just discuss women's roles in the United States - at WMF, as fellows, as researchers, as Wikimedians and active editors, etc. I created a list of people who are active US Wikimedians who are known to be women (didn't want to make assumptions about anyone) and some of the cool things they've been doing. Of course, these are limited to people I know, so I hope others are added (as someone did me). I also removed the "US related on Wikipedia" in regards to the subject matter (which was added back). I wasn't really sure why netball would be featured because it's not popular in America at all, so to me it doesn't really tell us anything, but it's not popular. Same with roller derby. (But other women's sports aren't discussed?) So I guess if someone has interest in discussing American women's sports, this area has room for expansion, or IMHO removal. And the list of popular biographies makes sense
- Amy Winehouse died when this data was retrieved and I'm sure her
popularity has been replaced. And it's no surprise that "someone from Barbados" is in the top 10 - it's Rhianna, and same for Nicki Minaj (two of the most famous pop stars in the world, at least in the US.) I just don't' think this shows much about women who contribute to Wikipedia except that people of all genders like reading articles about pop stars and media frenzies.
I'm more curious about how women are active and what women are doing. Who are planning events, have those been successes? Are people being hired by Wiki companies? (Not just Wikimedia.) What is participation like regarding women and other Wiki websites? (This conference is about that right, not just Wikimedia?). Sadly I can't gather data on those, nor do I know how, but it would be cool to know what the most popular Wiki's are for women and so forth.
I am sure your intentions are good though, so perhaps it would be helpful to state somewhere what kind of information you're looking for that is *really* informative, and get rid of the non-relevant parts? I would say that the semi-automated adding of information isn't exactly helpful in at least the Dutch case - again, I can't vouch for other countries. Some information *is* interesting (interest ratios on Facebook or other external websites) and it would be a waste if that gets discarded because of the irrelevance of the rest of the page.
+1. I think this has really cool potential to focus on "original research"
- just knowing who is doing what and sharing that information. I took the
time on the US section to not only celebrate who is doing what, but, opportunities that women have been given in the movement in the US. I wanted people to see what women were doing in the United States, not what they *aren't* doing. We already know the statistics are depressing about women's participating - so what are women doing to change that or to be a part of that?
Thanks Lodewijk and Srikanth for sharing your thoughts! I was beginning to think I was the only person who had these thoughts!
And thanks Laura for spearheading a unique and interesting opportunity to learn more about women around the world in the community. I hope people be bold and participate!
Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
I suspect people have been hesitant to remove the information because it's not clear why it was added in the first place; on the whole, Wikimedians are content collectors rather than content removers, unless they are very comfortable that the information being removed is of no significant value or is actively harmful.
Having a quick glance, I see comments like "no women were elected to Arbcom" for projects that don't have Arbcoms, and references to no women on projects that don't exist for that language group.
As the majority of the data was completed by Laura (thanks for all your research!), perhaps she could help the list to understand what the intention was in including some of this information.
Risker/Anne
Risker/Anne
On 1 February 2012 10:41, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
Again, I would like to point that meta is a wiki and all of us have usernames there. So I would suggest all of you to *be bold *and correct what is not correct in your opinion. _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 13:18, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Laura - Thanks for asking for more contributions. I was wondering what was going on, since the project has seemed a bit quiet lately! Glad to know it's catching steam again. I made some edits a few months ago to the US section. (See comments below)
On 2/1/12 5:18 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could add some explanation why you are collecting this information, what you want to make clear. Because as I explained before to you privately (and I see nothing has changed) at least for the Netherlands the stats that have been put up are almost hilarious. Lots of percentages, but every Dutch person will be able to tell you that many of them are of no meaning (Ripuarian is not a language spoken at any significant level in the Netherlands, Zealandic is considered mainly a dialect and has 1 admin, of course there are no Dutch women in the enwiki arbcom, because to my best knowledge there are no Dutch people in there at all at this moment, and I would wonder why there are no Dutch female admins on the Portuguese Wikinews...) I am not sure if it is just me, but reading this page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/Netherlands ) I would almost think that this is a parody of something - I can't tell if it is the same in other countries.
I've also been highly confused by these statistics. It confused me so much that I acted boldy and removed them from the United States section. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives#United_States When I started to see information on how there were no Portuguese women involved in Algerian Wikipedia I was like "why would there be? and is this information here?"
I rewrote the majority of the section to just discuss women's roles in the United States - at WMF, as fellows, as researchers, as Wikimedians and active editors, etc. I created a list of people who are active US Wikimedians who are known to be women (didn't want to make assumptions about anyone) and some of the cool things they've been doing. Of course, these are limited to people I know, so I hope others are added (as someone did me). I also removed the "US related on Wikipedia" in regards to the subject matter (which was added back). I wasn't really sure why netball would be featured because it's not popular in America at all, so to me it doesn't really tell us anything, but it's not popular. Same with roller derby. (But other women's sports aren't discussed?) So I guess if someone has interest in discussing American women's sports, this area has room for expansion, or IMHO removal. And the list of popular biographies makes sense
- Amy Winehouse died when this data was retrieved and I'm sure her
popularity has been replaced. And it's no surprise that "someone from Barbados" is in the top 10 - it's Rhianna, and same for Nicki Minaj (two of the most famous pop stars in the world, at least in the US.) I just don't' think this shows much about women who contribute to Wikipedia except that people of all genders like reading articles about pop stars and media frenzies.
I'm more curious about how women are active and what women are doing. Who are planning events, have those been successes? Are people being hired by Wiki companies? (Not just Wikimedia.) What is participation like regarding women and other Wiki websites? (This conference is about that right, not just Wikimedia?). Sadly I can't gather data on those, nor do I know how, but it would be cool to know what the most popular Wiki's are for women and so forth.
I am sure your intentions are good though, so perhaps it would be helpful to state somewhere what kind of information you're looking for that is *really* informative, and get rid of the non-relevant parts? I would say that the semi-automated adding of information isn't exactly helpful in at least the Dutch case - again, I can't vouch for other countries. Some information *is* interesting (interest ratios on Facebook or other external websites) and it would be a waste if that gets discarded because of the irrelevance of the rest of the page.
+1. I think this has really cool potential to focus on "original research" - just knowing who is doing what and sharing that information. I took the time on the US section to not only celebrate who is doing what, but, opportunities that women have been given in the movement in the US. I wanted people to see what women were doing in the United States, not what they *aren't* doing. We already know the statistics are depressing about women's participating - so what are women doing to change that or to be a part of that?
Thanks Lodewijk and Srikanth for sharing your thoughts! I was beginning to think I was the only person who had these thoughts!
And thanks Laura for spearheading a unique and interesting opportunity to learn more about women around the world in the community. I hope people be bold and participate!
Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
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 can't answer for her, but I believe she was only gathering data. Since she isn't Brazilian or Indian or Dutch, maybe might be difficult for her to know what is excatly relevant or not.
I put in my list correct Brazil's and Portugal's entry, but I still didn't find time to do so, but please - If anyone has the time, do it for your country (and for mine if you have spare time) :-) _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 13:51, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect people have been hesitant to remove the information because it's not clear why it was added in the first place; on the whole, Wikimedians are content collectors rather than content removers, unless they are very comfortable that the information being removed is of no significant value or is actively harmful.
Having a quick glance, I see comments like "no women were elected to Arbcom" for projects that don't have Arbcoms, and references to no women on projects that don't exist for that language group.
As the majority of the data was completed by Laura (thanks for all your research!), perhaps she could help the list to understand what the intention was in including some of this information.
Risker/Anne
Risker/Anne
On 1 February 2012 10:41, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
Again, I would like to point that meta is a wiki and all of us have usernames there. So I would suggest all of you to *be bold *and correct what is not correct in your opinion. _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 13:18, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Laura - Thanks for asking for more contributions. I was wondering what was going on, since the project has seemed a bit quiet lately! Glad to know it's catching steam again. I made some edits a few months ago to the US section. (See comments below)
On 2/1/12 5:18 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could add some explanation why you are collecting this information, what you want to make clear. Because as I explained before to you privately (and I see nothing has changed) at least for the Netherlands the stats that have been put up are almost hilarious. Lots of percentages, but every Dutch person will be able to tell you that many of them are of no meaning (Ripuarian is not a language spoken at any significant level in the Netherlands, Zealandic is considered mainly a dialect and has 1 admin, of course there are no Dutch women in the enwiki arbcom, because to my best knowledge there are no Dutch people in there at all at this moment, and I would wonder why there are no Dutch female admins on the Portuguese Wikinews...) I am not sure if it is just me, but reading this page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/Netherlands ) I would almost think that this is a parody of something - I can't tell if it is the same in other countries.
I've also been highly confused by these statistics. It confused me so much that I acted boldy and removed them from the United States section. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives#United_States When I started to see information on how there were no Portuguese women involved in Algerian Wikipedia I was like "why would there be? and is this information here?"
I rewrote the majority of the section to just discuss women's roles in the United States - at WMF, as fellows, as researchers, as Wikimedians and active editors, etc. I created a list of people who are active US Wikimedians who are known to be women (didn't want to make assumptions about anyone) and some of the cool things they've been doing. Of course, these are limited to people I know, so I hope others are added (as someone did me). I also removed the "US related on Wikipedia" in regards to the subject matter (which was added back). I wasn't really sure why netball would be featured because it's not popular in America at all, so to me it doesn't really tell us anything, but it's not popular. Same with roller derby. (But other women's sports aren't discussed?) So I guess if someone has interest in discussing American women's sports, this area has room for expansion, or IMHO removal. And the list of popular biographies makes sense
- Amy Winehouse died when this data was retrieved and I'm sure her
popularity has been replaced. And it's no surprise that "someone from Barbados" is in the top 10 - it's Rhianna, and same for Nicki Minaj (two of the most famous pop stars in the world, at least in the US.) I just don't' think this shows much about women who contribute to Wikipedia except that people of all genders like reading articles about pop stars and media frenzies.
I'm more curious about how women are active and what women are doing. Who are planning events, have those been successes? Are people being hired by Wiki companies? (Not just Wikimedia.) What is participation like regarding women and other Wiki websites? (This conference is about that right, not just Wikimedia?). Sadly I can't gather data on those, nor do I know how, but it would be cool to know what the most popular Wiki's are for women and so forth.
I am sure your intentions are good though, so perhaps it would be helpful to state somewhere what kind of information you're looking for that is *really* informative, and get rid of the non-relevant parts? I would say that the semi-automated adding of information isn't exactly helpful in at least the Dutch case - again, I can't vouch for other countries. Some information *is* interesting (interest ratios on Facebook or other external websites) and it would be a waste if that gets discarded because of the irrelevance of the rest of the page.
+1. I think this has really cool potential to focus on "original research" - just knowing who is doing what and sharing that information. I took the time on the US section to not only celebrate who is doing what, but, opportunities that women have been given in the movement in the US. I wanted people to see what women were doing in the United States, not what they *aren't* doing. We already know the statistics are depressing about women's participating - so what are women doing to change that or to be a part of that?
Thanks Lodewijk and Srikanth for sharing your thoughts! I was beginning to think I was the only person who had these thoughts!
And thanks Laura for spearheading a unique and interesting opportunity to learn more about women around the world in the community. I hope people be bold and participate!
Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
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
2012/2/1 Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt
I can't answer for her, but I believe she was only gathering data. Since she isn't Brazilian or Indian or Dutch, maybe might be difficult for her to know what is excatly relevant or not.
The problem here is that you musn't try to fix a bias or imbalance (in this case: gender gap) when you don't understand the problem features and the details of every human group.
I put in my list correct Brazil's and Portugal's entry, but I still didn't find time to do so, but please - If anyone has the time, do it for your country (and for mine if you have spare time) :-) _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 13:51, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect people have been hesitant to remove the information because it's not clear why it was added in the first place; on the whole, Wikimedians are content collectors rather than content removers, unless they are very comfortable that the information being removed is of no significant value or is actively harmful.
Having a quick glance, I see comments like "no women were elected to Arbcom" for projects that don't have Arbcoms, and references to no women on projects that don't exist for that language group.
As the majority of the data was completed by Laura (thanks for all your research!), perhaps she could help the list to understand what the intention was in including some of this information.
Risker/Anne
Risker/Anne
On 1 February 2012 10:41, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
Again, I would like to point that meta is a wiki and all of us have usernames there. So I would suggest all of you to *be bold *and correct what is not correct in your opinion. _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 13:18, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
Laura - Thanks for asking for more contributions. I was wondering what was going on, since the project has seemed a bit quiet lately! Glad to know it's catching steam again. I made some edits a few months ago to the US section. (See comments below)
On 2/1/12 5:18 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could add some explanation why you are collecting this information, what you want to make clear. Because as I explained before to you privately (and I see nothing has changed) at least for the Netherlands the stats that have been put up are almost hilarious. Lots of percentages, but every Dutch person will be able to tell you that many of them are of no meaning (Ripuarian is not a language spoken at any significant level in the Netherlands, Zealandic is considered mainly a dialect and has 1 admin, of course there are no Dutch women in the enwiki arbcom, because to my best knowledge there are no Dutch people in there at all at this moment, and I would wonder why there are no Dutch female admins on the Portuguese Wikinews...) I am not sure if it is just me, but reading this page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/Netherlands ) I would almost think that this is a parody of something - I can't tell if it is the same in other countries.
I've also been highly confused by these statistics. It confused me so much that I acted boldy and removed them from the United States section. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives#United_States When I started to see information on how there were no Portuguese women involved in Algerian Wikipedia I was like "why would there be? and is this information here?"
I rewrote the majority of the section to just discuss women's roles in the United States - at WMF, as fellows, as researchers, as Wikimedians and active editors, etc. I created a list of people who are active US Wikimedians who are known to be women (didn't want to make assumptions about anyone) and some of the cool things they've been doing. Of course, these are limited to people I know, so I hope others are added (as someone did me). I also removed the "US related on Wikipedia" in regards to the subject matter (which was added back). I wasn't really sure why netball would be featured because it's not popular in America at all, so to me it doesn't really tell us anything, but it's not popular. Same with roller derby. (But other women's sports aren't discussed?) So I guess if someone has interest in discussing American women's sports, this area has room for expansion, or IMHO removal. And the list of popular biographies makes sense
- Amy Winehouse died when this data was retrieved and I'm sure her
popularity has been replaced. And it's no surprise that "someone from Barbados" is in the top 10 - it's Rhianna, and same for Nicki Minaj (two of the most famous pop stars in the world, at least in the US.) I just don't' think this shows much about women who contribute to Wikipedia except that people of all genders like reading articles about pop stars and media frenzies.
I'm more curious about how women are active and what women are doing. Who are planning events, have those been successes? Are people being hired by Wiki companies? (Not just Wikimedia.) What is participation like regarding women and other Wiki websites? (This conference is about that right, not just Wikimedia?). Sadly I can't gather data on those, nor do I know how, but it would be cool to know what the most popular Wiki's are for women and so forth.
I am sure your intentions are good though, so perhaps it would be helpful to state somewhere what kind of information you're looking for that is *really* informative, and get rid of the non-relevant parts? I would say that the semi-automated adding of information isn't exactly helpful in at least the Dutch case - again, I can't vouch for other countries. Some information *is* interesting (interest ratios on Facebook or other external websites) and it would be a waste if that gets discarded because of the irrelevance of the rest of the page.
+1. I think this has really cool potential to focus on "original research" - just knowing who is doing what and sharing that information. I took the time on the US section to not only celebrate who is doing what, but, opportunities that women have been given in the movement in the US. I wanted people to see what women were doing in the United States, not what they *aren't* doing. We already know the statistics are depressing about women's participating - so what are women doing to change that or to be a part of that?
Thanks Lodewijk and Srikanth for sharing your thoughts! I was beginning to think I was the only person who had these thoughts!
And thanks Laura for spearheading a unique and interesting opportunity to learn more about women around the world in the community. I hope people be bold and participate!
Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
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
We are not trying to fix gender gap here (here means: WWCamp ) Emijrp. _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 18:03, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/1 Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt
I can't answer for her, but I believe she was only gathering data. Since she isn't Brazilian or Indian or Dutch, maybe might be difficult for her to know what is excatly relevant or not.
The problem here is that you musn't try to fix a bias or imbalance (in this case: gender gap) when you don't understand the problem features and the details of every human group.
I put in my list correct Brazil's and Portugal's entry, but I still didn't find time to do so, but please - If anyone has the time, do it for your country (and for mine if you have spare time) :-) _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 13:51, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect people have been hesitant to remove the information because it's not clear why it was added in the first place; on the whole, Wikimedians are content collectors rather than content removers, unless they are very comfortable that the information being removed is of no significant value or is actively harmful.
Having a quick glance, I see comments like "no women were elected to Arbcom" for projects that don't have Arbcoms, and references to no women on projects that don't exist for that language group.
As the majority of the data was completed by Laura (thanks for all your research!), perhaps she could help the list to understand what the intention was in including some of this information.
Risker/Anne
Risker/Anne
On 1 February 2012 10:41, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
Again, I would like to point that meta is a wiki and all of us have usernames there. So I would suggest all of you to *be bold *and correct what is not correct in your opinion. _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 13:18, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
Laura - Thanks for asking for more contributions. I was wondering what was going on, since the project has seemed a bit quiet lately! Glad to know it's catching steam again. I made some edits a few months ago to the US section. (See comments below)
On 2/1/12 5:18 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could add some explanation why you are collecting this information, what you want to make clear. Because as I explained before to you privately (and I see nothing has changed) at least for the Netherlands the stats that have been put up are almost hilarious. Lots of percentages, but every Dutch person will be able to tell you that many of them are of no meaning (Ripuarian is not a language spoken at any significant level in the Netherlands, Zealandic is considered mainly a dialect and has 1 admin, of course there are no Dutch women in the enwiki arbcom, because to my best knowledge there are no Dutch people in there at all at this moment, and I would wonder why there are no Dutch female admins on the Portuguese Wikinews...) I am not sure if it is just me, but reading this page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/Netherlands ) I would almost think that this is a parody of something - I can't tell if it is the same in other countries.
I've also been highly confused by these statistics. It confused me so much that I acted boldy and removed them from the United States section. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives#United_States When I started to see information on how there were no Portuguese women involved in Algerian Wikipedia I was like "why would there be? and is this information here?"
I rewrote the majority of the section to just discuss women's roles in the United States - at WMF, as fellows, as researchers, as Wikimedians and active editors, etc. I created a list of people who are active US Wikimedians who are known to be women (didn't want to make assumptions about anyone) and some of the cool things they've been doing. Of course, these are limited to people I know, so I hope others are added (as someone did me). I also removed the "US related on Wikipedia" in regards to the subject matter (which was added back). I wasn't really sure why netball would be featured because it's not popular in America at all, so to me it doesn't really tell us anything, but it's not popular. Same with roller derby. (But other women's sports aren't discussed?) So I guess if someone has interest in discussing American women's sports, this area has room for expansion, or IMHO removal. And the list of popular biographies makes sense
- Amy Winehouse died when this data was retrieved and I'm sure her
popularity has been replaced. And it's no surprise that "someone from Barbados" is in the top 10 - it's Rhianna, and same for Nicki Minaj (two of the most famous pop stars in the world, at least in the US.) I just don't' think this shows much about women who contribute to Wikipedia except that people of all genders like reading articles about pop stars and media frenzies.
I'm more curious about how women are active and what women are doing. Who are planning events, have those been successes? Are people being hired by Wiki companies? (Not just Wikimedia.) What is participation like regarding women and other Wiki websites? (This conference is about that right, not just Wikimedia?). Sadly I can't gather data on those, nor do I know how, but it would be cool to know what the most popular Wiki's are for women and so forth.
I am sure your intentions are good though, so perhaps it would be helpful to state somewhere what kind of information you're looking for that is *really* informative, and get rid of the non-relevant parts? I would say that the semi-automated adding of information isn't exactly helpful in at least the Dutch case - again, I can't vouch for other countries. Some information *is* interesting (interest ratios on Facebook or other external websites) and it would be a waste if that gets discarded because of the irrelevance of the rest of the page.
+1. I think this has really cool potential to focus on "original research" - just knowing who is doing what and sharing that information. I took the time on the US section to not only celebrate who is doing what, but, opportunities that women have been given in the movement in the US. I wanted people to see what women were doing in the United States, not what they *aren't* doing. We already know the statistics are depressing about women's participating - so what are women doing to change that or to be a part of that?
Thanks Lodewijk and Srikanth for sharing your thoughts! I was beginning to think I was the only person who had these thoughts!
And thanks Laura for spearheading a unique and interesting opportunity to learn more about women around the world in the community. I hope people be bold and participate!
Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
>Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
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
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
No. You just want to write a book with no rigor.
2012/2/1 Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt
We are not trying to fix gender gap here (here means: WWCamp ) Emijrp. _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 18:03, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/1 Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt
I can't answer for her, but I believe she was only gathering data. Since she isn't Brazilian or Indian or Dutch, maybe might be difficult for her to know what is excatly relevant or not.
The problem here is that you musn't try to fix a bias or imbalance (in this case: gender gap) when you don't understand the problem features and the details of every human group.
I put in my list correct Brazil's and Portugal's entry, but I still didn't find time to do so, but please - If anyone has the time, do it for your country (and for mine if you have spare time) :-) _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 13:51, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect people have been hesitant to remove the information because it's not clear why it was added in the first place; on the whole, Wikimedians are content collectors rather than content removers, unless they are very comfortable that the information being removed is of no significant value or is actively harmful.
Having a quick glance, I see comments like "no women were elected to Arbcom" for projects that don't have Arbcoms, and references to no women on projects that don't exist for that language group.
As the majority of the data was completed by Laura (thanks for all your research!), perhaps she could help the list to understand what the intention was in including some of this information.
Risker/Anne
Risker/Anne
On 1 February 2012 10:41, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
Again, I would like to point that meta is a wiki and all of us have usernames there. So I would suggest all of you to *be bold *and correct what is not correct in your opinion. _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 13:18, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
Laura - Thanks for asking for more contributions. I was wondering what was going on, since the project has seemed a bit quiet lately! Glad to know it's catching steam again. I made some edits a few months ago to the US section. (See comments below)
On 2/1/12 5:18 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could add some explanation why you are collecting this information, what you want to make clear. Because as I explained before to you privately (and I see nothing has changed) at least for the Netherlands the stats that have been put up are almost hilarious. Lots of percentages, but every Dutch person will be able to tell you that many of them are of no meaning (Ripuarian is not a language spoken at any significant level in the Netherlands, Zealandic is considered mainly a dialect and has 1 admin, of course there are no Dutch women in the enwiki arbcom, because to my best knowledge there are no Dutch people in there at all at this moment, and I would wonder why there are no Dutch female admins on the Portuguese Wikinews...) I am not sure if it is just me, but reading this page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/Netherlands ) I would almost think that this is a parody of something - I can't tell if it is the same in other countries.
I've also been highly confused by these statistics. It confused me so much that I acted boldy and removed them from the United States section. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives#United_States When I started to see information on how there were no Portuguese women involved in Algerian Wikipedia I was like "why would there be? and is this information here?"
I rewrote the majority of the section to just discuss women's roles in the United States - at WMF, as fellows, as researchers, as Wikimedians and active editors, etc. I created a list of people who are active US Wikimedians who are known to be women (didn't want to make assumptions about anyone) and some of the cool things they've been doing. Of course, these are limited to people I know, so I hope others are added (as someone did me). I also removed the "US related on Wikipedia" in regards to the subject matter (which was added back). I wasn't really sure why netball would be featured because it's not popular in America at all, so to me it doesn't really tell us anything, but it's not popular. Same with roller derby. (But other women's sports aren't discussed?) So I guess if someone has interest in discussing American women's sports, this area has room for expansion, or IMHO removal. And the list of popular biographies makes sense
- Amy Winehouse died when this data was retrieved and I'm sure her
popularity has been replaced. And it's no surprise that "someone from Barbados" is in the top 10 - it's Rhianna, and same for Nicki Minaj (two of the most famous pop stars in the world, at least in the US.) I just don't' think this shows much about women who contribute to Wikipedia except that people of all genders like reading articles about pop stars and media frenzies.
I'm more curious about how women are active and what women are doing. Who are planning events, have those been successes? Are people being hired by Wiki companies? (Not just Wikimedia.) What is participation like regarding women and other Wiki websites? (This conference is about that right, not just Wikimedia?). Sadly I can't gather data on those, nor do I know how, but it would be cool to know what the most popular Wiki's are for women and so forth.
I am sure your intentions are good though, so perhaps it would be helpful to state somewhere what kind of information you're looking for that is *really* informative, and get rid of the non-relevant parts? I would say that the semi-automated adding of information isn't exactly helpful in at least the Dutch case - again, I can't vouch for other countries. Some information *is* interesting (interest ratios on Facebook or other external websites) and it would be a waste if that gets discarded because of the irrelevance of the rest of the page.
+1. I think this has really cool potential to focus on "original research" - just knowing who is doing what and sharing that information. I took the time on the US section to not only celebrate who is doing what, but, opportunities that women have been given in the movement in the US. I wanted people to see what women were doing in the United States, not what they *aren't* doing. We already know the statistics are depressing about women's participating - so what are women doing to change that or to be a part of that?
Thanks Lodewijk and Srikanth for sharing your thoughts! I was beginning to think I was the only person who had these thoughts!
And thanks Laura for spearheading a unique and interesting opportunity to learn more about women around the world in the community. I hope people be bold and participate!
Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow* >>Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate today https://donate.wikimedia.org/<<
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
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
Exact, just like Wikipedia :D _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 18:35, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
No. You just want to write a book with no rigor.
2012/2/1 Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt
We are not trying to fix gender gap here (here means: WWCamp ) Emijrp. _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 18:03, emijrp emijrp@gmail.com wrote:
2012/2/1 Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt
I can't answer for her, but I believe she was only gathering data. Since she isn't Brazilian or Indian or Dutch, maybe might be difficult for her to know what is excatly relevant or not.
The problem here is that you musn't try to fix a bias or imbalance (in this case: gender gap) when you don't understand the problem features and the details of every human group.
I put in my list correct Brazil's and Portugal's entry, but I still didn't find time to do so, but please - If anyone has the time, do it for your country (and for mine if you have spare time) :-) _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 13:51, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect people have been hesitant to remove the information because it's not clear why it was added in the first place; on the whole, Wikimedians are content collectors rather than content removers, unless they are very comfortable that the information being removed is of no significant value or is actively harmful.
Having a quick glance, I see comments like "no women were elected to Arbcom" for projects that don't have Arbcoms, and references to no women on projects that don't exist for that language group.
As the majority of the data was completed by Laura (thanks for all your research!), perhaps she could help the list to understand what the intention was in including some of this information.
Risker/Anne
Risker/Anne
On 1 February 2012 10:41, Béria Lima beria.lima@wikimedia.pt wrote:
Again, I would like to point that meta is a wiki and all of us have usernames there. So I would suggest all of you to *be bold *and correct what is not correct in your opinion. _____ *Béria Lima* Wikimedia Portugal http://wikimedia.pt (351) 963 953 042
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. Ajude-nos a construir esse sonho. http://wikimedia.pt/Donativos*
On 1 February 2012 13:18, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.comwrote:
> Laura - Thanks for asking for more contributions. I was wondering > what was going on, since the project has seemed a bit quiet lately! Glad to > know it's catching steam again. I made some edits a few months ago to the > US section. (See comments below) > > > On 2/1/12 5:18 AM, Lodewijk wrote: > > Perhaps it would be helpful if you could add some explanation why > you are collecting this information, what you want to make clear. Because > as I explained before to you privately (and I see nothing has changed) at > least for the Netherlands the stats that have been put up are almost > hilarious. Lots of percentages, but every Dutch person will be able to tell > you that many of them are of no meaning (Ripuarian is not a language spoken > at any significant level in the Netherlands, Zealandic is considered mainly > a dialect and has 1 admin, of course there are no Dutch women in the enwiki > arbcom, because to my best knowledge there are no Dutch people in there at > all at this moment, and I would wonder why there are no Dutch female admins > on the Portuguese Wikinews...) I am not sure if it is just me, but reading > this page ( > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/Netherlands ) > I would almost think that this is a parody of something - I can't tell if > it is the same in other countries. > > > I've also been highly confused by these statistics. It confused me > so much that I acted boldy and removed them from the United States section. > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives#United_States > When I started to see information on how there were no Portuguese women > involved in Algerian Wikipedia I was like "why would there be? and is this > information here?" > > I rewrote the majority of the section to just discuss women's roles > in the United States - at WMF, as fellows, as researchers, as Wikimedians > and active editors, etc. I created a list of people who are active US > Wikimedians who are known to be women (didn't want to make assumptions > about anyone) and some of the cool things they've been doing. Of course, > these are limited to people I know, so I hope others are added (as someone > did me). I also removed the "US related on Wikipedia" in regards to the > subject matter (which was added back). I wasn't really sure why netball > would be featured because it's not popular in America at all, so to me it > doesn't really tell us anything, but it's not popular. Same with roller > derby. (But other women's sports aren't discussed?) So I guess if someone > has interest in discussing American women's sports, this area has room for > expansion, or IMHO removal. And the list of popular biographies makes sense > - Amy Winehouse died when this data was retrieved and I'm sure her > popularity has been replaced. And it's no surprise that "someone from > Barbados" is in the top 10 - it's Rhianna, and same for Nicki Minaj (two of > the most famous pop stars in the world, at least in the US.) I just don't' > think this shows much about women who contribute to Wikipedia except that > people of all genders like reading articles about pop stars and media > frenzies. > > I'm more curious about how women are active and what women are > doing. Who are planning events, have those been successes? Are people being > hired by Wiki companies? (Not just Wikimedia.) What is participation like > regarding women and other Wiki websites? (This conference is about that > right, not just Wikimedia?). Sadly I can't gather data on those, nor do I > know how, but it would be cool to know what the most popular Wiki's are for > women and so forth. > > > I am sure your intentions are good though, so perhaps it would be > helpful to state somewhere what kind of information you're looking for that > is *really* informative, and get rid of the non-relevant parts? I would say > that the semi-automated adding of information isn't exactly helpful in at > least the Dutch case - again, I can't vouch for other countries. Some > information *is* interesting (interest ratios on Facebook or other external > websites) and it would be a waste if that gets discarded because of the > irrelevance of the rest of the page. > > > +1. I think this has really cool potential to focus on "original > research" - just knowing who is doing what and sharing that information. I > took the time on the US section to not only celebrate who is doing what, > but, opportunities that women have been given in the movement in the US. I > wanted people to see what women were doing in the United States, not what > they *aren't* doing. We already know the statistics are depressing > about women's participating - so what are women doing to change that or to > be a part of that? > > Thanks Lodewijk and Srikanth for sharing your thoughts! I was > beginning to think I was the only person who had these thoughts! > > And thanks Laura for spearheading a unique and interesting > opportunity to learn more about women around the world in the community. I > hope people be bold and participate! > > Sarah > > -- > *Sarah Stierch* > *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow* > >>Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate > today https://donate.wikimedia.org/<< > > _______________________________________________ > 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
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
On 2/1/12 3:35 PM, emijrp wrote:
No. You just want to write a book with no rigor.
Not sure why I didn't think of this the first time, but, like Beria and I both said - let's be bold and while we hope for input from Laura, I'm sure people would be welcome to improve on their pages, like I hope I did in the US section. (I did remove the material related to top articles and so forth, but it was returned!)
And of course, like all wiki's, there is a talk page for each country that Laura has listed, so you can even craft conversation and ideas there. And of course, I do encourage constructive conversation here on this mailing list (more than just an obtuse one liner!). (For example, here is the US talk page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/United_States)
Thanks Beria for encouraging others to participate on Meta! Looking forward to seeing the materials on Meta continue to grow into something really valuable for the community! I think if we can focus on what people are doing, it'll show us where we can place ourselves in the role of Wikimedia, and also encourage us to examine what people aren't doing. Sometimes just focusing on that 9% can be a downer, you know? :)
-Sarah
Hi all, Actually, I would also love to write a book with no rigor, so I sympathize with the idea. Sorry I missed this. As one of the two female board members of the Dutch Wikimedia organization I feel compelled to contribute to this page. Unfortunately I am not sure when I will have time. I promise to think about it and meanwhile I see that my colleague Cyriel has come to the rescue. Good luck with the initiative! Jane
On 1 feb. 2012, at 21:40, Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/1/12 3:35 PM, emijrp wrote:
No. You just want to write a book with no rigor.
Not sure why I didn't think of this the first time, but, like Beria and I both said - let's be bold and while we hope for input from Laura, I'm sure people would be welcome to improve on their pages, like I hope I did in the US section. (I did remove the material related to top articles and so forth, but it was returned!)
And of course, like all wiki's, there is a talk page for each country that Laura has listed, so you can even craft conversation and ideas there. And of course, I do encourage constructive conversation here on this mailing list (more than just an obtuse one liner!). (For example, here is the US talk page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/United_States)
Thanks Beria for encouraging others to participate on Meta! Looking forward to seeing the materials on Meta continue to grow into something really valuable for the community! I think if we can focus on what people are doing, it'll show us where we can place ourselves in the role of Wikimedia, and also encourage us to examine what people aren't doing. Sometimes just focusing on that 9% can be a downer, you know? :)
-Sarah
-- Sarah Stierch Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow
Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate today<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect people have been hesitant to remove the information because it's not clear why it was added in the first place; on the whole, Wikimedians are content collectors rather than content removers, unless they are very comfortable that the information being removed is of no significant value or is actively harmful.
Having a quick glance, I see comments like "no women were elected to Arbcom" for projects that don't have Arbcoms, and references to no women on projects that don't exist for that language group.
As the majority of the data was completed by Laura (thanks for all your research!), perhaps she could help the list to understand what the intention was in including some of this information.
Indeed.
Has this been answered in a different thread or on a talk page somewhere? I too am puzzled by the data in the "Perspectives" section, and I share Lodewijk's concern about drowning out interesting data points with a lot of meaningless ones.
Asaf
A lot of work has been done on these pages and they are now better. But a lot of the pages are still polluted with useless and irrelevant information. It would be a better idea to start from a basis of zero female participation and then point out exceptions to that, rather than saying "there are zero women from the Cook Islands accredited with the Portugese Wikinews" or "There are no Albanian women who are admins on German Wikiversity". Local editors then add information on anything that is surprising or unusual about female participation in their country.
I know I could add it myself but why would I want to when the initial information dump is so baffling?
On Fri, Feb 24, 2012 at 7:32 AM, Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 1, 2012 at 7:51 AM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
I suspect people have been hesitant to remove the information because it's not clear why it was added in the first place; on the whole, Wikimedians are content collectors rather than content removers, unless they are very comfortable that the information being removed is of no significant value or is actively harmful.
Having a quick glance, I see comments like "no women were elected to Arbcom" for projects that don't have Arbcoms, and references to no women on projects that don't exist for that language group.
As the majority of the data was completed by Laura (thanks for all your research!), perhaps she could help the list to understand what the intention was in including some of this information.
Indeed.
Has this been answered in a different thread or on a talk page somewhere? I too am puzzled by the data in the "Perspectives" section, and I share Lodewijk's concern about drowning out interesting data points with a lot of meaningless ones.
Asaf-- Asaf Bartov asaf.bartov@gmail.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Hi, this is a personnal mail (not on the gender-gap list).
"two of the most famous pop stars in the world, at least in the US.)" is a really, really funny sentence :) Either they are famous "in the world", ie not only in the US, or "in the US" so not "in the world" :)
Again, this is funny, not a horrible mistake of yours :)
Caroline
2012/2/1 Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com
Laura - Thanks for asking for more contributions. I was wondering what was going on, since the project has seemed a bit quiet lately! Glad to know it's catching steam again. I made some edits a few months ago to the US section. (See comments below)
On 2/1/12 5:18 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could add some explanation why you are collecting this information, what you want to make clear. Because as I explained before to you privately (and I see nothing has changed) at least for the Netherlands the stats that have been put up are almost hilarious. Lots of percentages, but every Dutch person will be able to tell you that many of them are of no meaning (Ripuarian is not a language spoken at any significant level in the Netherlands, Zealandic is considered mainly a dialect and has 1 admin, of course there are no Dutch women in the enwiki arbcom, because to my best knowledge there are no Dutch people in there at all at this moment, and I would wonder why there are no Dutch female admins on the Portuguese Wikinews...) I am not sure if it is just me, but reading this page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/Netherlands ) I would almost think that this is a parody of something - I can't tell if it is the same in other countries.
I've also been highly confused by these statistics. It confused me so much that I acted boldy and removed them from the United States section. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives#United_States When I started to see information on how there were no Portuguese women involved in Algerian Wikipedia I was like "why would there be? and is this information here?"
I rewrote the majority of the section to just discuss women's roles in the United States - at WMF, as fellows, as researchers, as Wikimedians and active editors, etc. I created a list of people who are active US Wikimedians who are known to be women (didn't want to make assumptions about anyone) and some of the cool things they've been doing. Of course, these are limited to people I know, so I hope others are added (as someone did me). I also removed the "US related on Wikipedia" in regards to the subject matter (which was added back). I wasn't really sure why netball would be featured because it's not popular in America at all, so to me it doesn't really tell us anything, but it's not popular. Same with roller derby. (But other women's sports aren't discussed?) So I guess if someone has interest in discussing American women's sports, this area has room for expansion, or IMHO removal. And the list of popular biographies makes sense
- Amy Winehouse died when this data was retrieved and I'm sure her
popularity has been replaced. And it's no surprise that "someone from Barbados" is in the top 10 - it's Rhianna, and same for Nicki Minaj (two of the most famous pop stars in the world, at least in the US.) I just don't' think this shows much about women who contribute to Wikipedia except that people of all genders like reading articles about pop stars and media frenzies.
I'm more curious about how women are active and what women are doing. Who are planning events, have those been successes? Are people being hired by Wiki companies? (Not just Wikimedia.) What is participation like regarding women and other Wiki websites? (This conference is about that right, not just Wikimedia?). Sadly I can't gather data on those, nor do I know how, but it would be cool to know what the most popular Wiki's are for women and so forth.
I am sure your intentions are good though, so perhaps it would be helpful to state somewhere what kind of information you're looking for that is *really* informative, and get rid of the non-relevant parts? I would say that the semi-automated adding of information isn't exactly helpful in at least the Dutch case - again, I can't vouch for other countries. Some information *is* interesting (interest ratios on Facebook or other external websites) and it would be a waste if that gets discarded because of the irrelevance of the rest of the page.
+1. I think this has really cool potential to focus on "original research"
- just knowing who is doing what and sharing that information. I took the
time on the US section to not only celebrate who is doing what, but, opportunities that women have been given in the movement in the US. I wanted people to see what women were doing in the United States, not what they *aren't* doing. We already know the statistics are depressing about women's participating - so what are women doing to change that or to be a part of that?
Thanks Lodewijk and Srikanth for sharing your thoughts! I was beginning to think I was the only person who had these thoughts!
And thanks Laura for spearheading a unique and interesting opportunity to learn more about women around the world in the community. I hope people be bold and participate!
Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Yeah me for sending a personnal mail to the whole list :)
Caroline
2012/2/1 Caroline Becker carobecker54@gmail.com
Hi, this is a personnal mail (not on the gender-gap list).
"two of the most famous pop stars in the world, at least in the US.)" is a really, really funny sentence :) Either they are famous "in the world", ie not only in the US, or "in the US" so not "in the world" :)
Again, this is funny, not a horrible mistake of yours :)
Caroline
2012/2/1 Sarah Stierch sarah.stierch@gmail.com
Laura - Thanks for asking for more contributions. I was wondering what was going on, since the project has seemed a bit quiet lately! Glad to know it's catching steam again. I made some edits a few months ago to the US section. (See comments below)
On 2/1/12 5:18 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could add some explanation why you are collecting this information, what you want to make clear. Because as I explained before to you privately (and I see nothing has changed) at least for the Netherlands the stats that have been put up are almost hilarious. Lots of percentages, but every Dutch person will be able to tell you that many of them are of no meaning (Ripuarian is not a language spoken at any significant level in the Netherlands, Zealandic is considered mainly a dialect and has 1 admin, of course there are no Dutch women in the enwiki arbcom, because to my best knowledge there are no Dutch people in there at all at this moment, and I would wonder why there are no Dutch female admins on the Portuguese Wikinews...) I am not sure if it is just me, but reading this page ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives/Netherlands ) I would almost think that this is a parody of something - I can't tell if it is the same in other countries.
I've also been highly confused by these statistics. It confused me so much that I acted boldy and removed them from the United States section. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WikiWomenCamp/FAQ/Perspectives#United_States When I started to see information on how there were no Portuguese women involved in Algerian Wikipedia I was like "why would there be? and is this information here?"
I rewrote the majority of the section to just discuss women's roles in the United States - at WMF, as fellows, as researchers, as Wikimedians and active editors, etc. I created a list of people who are active US Wikimedians who are known to be women (didn't want to make assumptions about anyone) and some of the cool things they've been doing. Of course, these are limited to people I know, so I hope others are added (as someone did me). I also removed the "US related on Wikipedia" in regards to the subject matter (which was added back). I wasn't really sure why netball would be featured because it's not popular in America at all, so to me it doesn't really tell us anything, but it's not popular. Same with roller derby. (But other women's sports aren't discussed?) So I guess if someone has interest in discussing American women's sports, this area has room for expansion, or IMHO removal. And the list of popular biographies makes sense
- Amy Winehouse died when this data was retrieved and I'm sure her
popularity has been replaced. And it's no surprise that "someone from Barbados" is in the top 10 - it's Rhianna, and same for Nicki Minaj (two of the most famous pop stars in the world, at least in the US.) I just don't' think this shows much about women who contribute to Wikipedia except that people of all genders like reading articles about pop stars and media frenzies.
I'm more curious about how women are active and what women are doing. Who are planning events, have those been successes? Are people being hired by Wiki companies? (Not just Wikimedia.) What is participation like regarding women and other Wiki websites? (This conference is about that right, not just Wikimedia?). Sadly I can't gather data on those, nor do I know how, but it would be cool to know what the most popular Wiki's are for women and so forth.
I am sure your intentions are good though, so perhaps it would be helpful to state somewhere what kind of information you're looking for that is *really* informative, and get rid of the non-relevant parts? I would say that the semi-automated adding of information isn't exactly helpful in at least the Dutch case - again, I can't vouch for other countries. Some information *is* interesting (interest ratios on Facebook or other external websites) and it would be a waste if that gets discarded because of the irrelevance of the rest of the page.
+1. I think this has really cool potential to focus on "original research" - just knowing who is doing what and sharing that information. I took the time on the US section to not only celebrate who is doing what, but, opportunities that women have been given in the movement in the US. I wanted people to see what women were doing in the United States, not what they *aren't* doing. We already know the statistics are depressing about women's participating - so what are women doing to change that or to be a part of that?
Thanks Lodewijk and Srikanth for sharing your thoughts! I was beginning to think I was the only person who had these thoughts!
And thanks Laura for spearheading a unique and interesting opportunity to learn more about women around the world in the community. I hope people be bold and participate!
Sarah
-- *Sarah Stierch* *Wikimedia Foundation Community Fellow*
Support the sharing of free knowledge around the world: donate todayhttps://donate.wikimedia.org/
<<
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
On 2/1/12 10:45 AM, Caroline Becker wrote:
Hi, this is a personnal mail (not on the gender-gap list).
"two of the most famous pop stars in the world, at least in the US.)" is a really, really funny sentence :) Either they are famous "in the world", ie not only in the US, or "in the US" so not "in the world" :)
Again, this is funny, not a horrible mistake of yours :)
Caroline
Hahahaha! And I got your second email saying "yay for sending personal emails to the list!" No problem. I blame lack of caffeine (I only just woke up!) on my poorly structured sentence and bad grammar ;)
And yes, you know what I was saying. Ha ha! :)
Sarah