Now that I've vented, I've been thinking of Delphine's original question(s) regarding the why...this is what i came up with. *
1) Improve the quality of information.* Information is shaped by perspective, regardless of how NPOV you aim to be, and perspective is shaped by experience. When you experience the world in a certain perspective, you see things that others don't see. A Chinese immigrant in the United States may notice things that a American born may not see, just like it is very likely that a female may notice things their male counterparts don't see. * 2) Open doors to more groups*.The inclusion of women might have a domino affect, and open doors for other groups, particularly those that are traditionally dis-empowered, such as people of color in the United States. (You can include whatever other group you want here..I can only speak to the US). * 3) Improved processes and systems.* Collaboration is improved by diversity - everyone in this group knows this. More female participation may result in better collaborative brainstorming and problem solvin.
*4) Better organization.* Studies reveal that women tend to be great multi-taskers. IMHO, women are great multitaskers because they also plan their world to be more "efficient" for multitasking. I can totally see a group of women helping improve the organization of Wikipedia's rules, background knowledge, presentation, etc.
*5) Stronger community. *Reports are also showing that more women than men are on social media. This is because women tend to focus on creating community. A larger, more sophisticated Wikipedian community is so powerful, I'm not even sure how to describe its potential in words. However, it would have the ability to help the projects but bring change worldwide.
* 6) Better image. *Organizations that are ethical are usually favored and respected by society, which increase's an org's success. I am not talking "left vs right," and this is not a philosophical question, it is a public relations one. Talk to any PR practioner and they can share why this works, and examples of organizations taking this PR strategy. And, at a minimum, I can guarantee it will increase how many women worldwide see the project, which btw are 50% of the world's population.
*7) Better parties and possibly more Wikilove!* As corny as it sounds, I am quite positive that more women will improve the festivities in any wiki get together, and possibly result in more wikilove :) lolol Why not!! What a perfect place to meet someone that shares your interest, and better parties are usually always welcomed.
*8) A better world society.* Wikipedia has this ability to affect the world and start revolutions in what seems to be very silent but effective ways. I really believe that the inclusion of women will have amazing revolutionary affects on the world, and make it better. Channeling Jeff Bridges, "information is really power, man." And maybe we have come to take for granted that the world is informed/educated through wikipedia on a daily basis. This has an effect.
*9) Its the right thing to do.* Wikipedia has always gone against the grain, even though at times it ruffled society's feathers b/c transparency in knowledge sharing is more important than the agenda of any group. Its part of the free culture movement, dedicated to empowering people worldwide, and has done much in that area. Why wouldn't it come together now to improve on this systematic problem that affects not only the project, but humans at large. * 10) Who else is going to do it? *No one has the ability to look and tackle this complex issue like Wikipedian community. No other community has the strength in numbers, intellect, and structure to address an issue like this. I guarantee that other groups will embrace any solutions the community finds, b/c its not Wikipedia is not only a pioneer, but its a "best-in-breed" virtual project that comes up with "best-in-breed" solutions.
Hey Sandy,
I can't remember if I officially emoted joy yet that you joined this list! I was thrilled to see you here: I meant to say that earlier but I think I didn't. So, yay, and welcome back :-)
And thank you for this list: it's really great :-) Sue
Sent from my phone: please forgive any typos or terseness. Please also forgive top-posting; I can't do in-line replies from my phone. On Feb 8, 2011 8:13 AM, "Sandra ordonez" sandratordonez@gmail.com wrote:
Now that I've vented, I've been thinking of Delphine's original
question(s)
regarding the why...this is what i came up with. *
- Improve the quality of information.* Information is shaped by
perspective, regardless of how NPOV you aim to be, and perspective is
shaped
by experience. When you experience the world in a certain perspective, you see things that others don't see. A Chinese immigrant in the United States may notice things that a American born may not see, just like it is very likely that a female may notice things their male counterparts don't see.
- Open doors to more groups*.The inclusion of women might have a domino
affect, and open doors for other groups, particularly those that are traditionally dis-empowered, such as people of color in the United States. (You can include whatever other group you want here..I can only speak to
the
US).
- Improved processes and systems.* Collaboration is improved by diversity
-
everyone in this group knows this. More female participation may result in better collaborative brainstorming and problem solvin.
*4) Better organization.* Studies reveal that women tend to be great multi-taskers. IMHO, women are great multitaskers because they also plan their world to be more "efficient" for multitasking. I can totally see a group of women helping improve the organization of Wikipedia's rules, background knowledge, presentation, etc.
*5) Stronger community. *Reports are also showing that more women than men are on social media. This is because women tend to focus on creating community. A larger, more sophisticated Wikipedian community is so
powerful,
I'm not even sure how to describe its potential in words. However, it
would
have the ability to help the projects but bring change worldwide.
- Better image. *Organizations that are ethical are usually favored and
respected by society, which increase's an org's success. I am not talking "left vs right," and this is not a philosophical question, it is a public relations one. Talk to any PR practioner and they can share why this
works,
and examples of organizations taking this PR strategy. And, at a minimum,
I
can guarantee it will increase how many women worldwide see the project, which btw are 50% of the world's population.
*7) Better parties and possibly more Wikilove!* As corny as it sounds, I
am
quite positive that more women will improve the festivities in any wiki
get
together, and possibly result in more wikilove :) lolol Why not!! What a perfect place to meet someone that shares your interest, and better
parties
are usually always welcomed.
*8) A better world society.* Wikipedia has this ability to affect the
world
and start revolutions in what seems to be very silent but effective ways.
I
really believe that the inclusion of women will have amazing revolutionary affects on the world, and make it better. Channeling Jeff Bridges, "information is really power, man." And maybe we have come to take for granted that the world is informed/educated through wikipedia on a daily basis. This has an effect.
*9) Its the right thing to do.* Wikipedia has always gone against the
grain,
even though at times it ruffled society's feathers b/c transparency in knowledge sharing is more important than the agenda of any group. Its part of the free culture movement, dedicated to empowering people worldwide,
and
has done much in that area. Why wouldn't it come together now to improve
on
this systematic problem that affects not only the project, but humans at large.
- Who else is going to do it? *No one has the ability to look and tackle
this complex issue like Wikipedian community. No other community has the strength in numbers, intellect, and structure to address an issue like
this.
I guarantee that other groups will embrace any solutions the community finds, b/c its not Wikipedia is not only a pioneer, but its a "best-in-breed" virtual project that comes up with "best-in-breed" solutions.
-- Sandra Ordonez Web Astronaut
"Helping you rock out in the virtual world."
*www.collaborativenation.com*
Thanks! its nice to be back - I did really miss you guys soooo much!! I just needed a looonnggg break lol :)
This is soo important ! I am so proud of you guys for doing this!! I feel verklempt! lolol
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 1:16 PM, Sue Gardner sgardner@wikimedia.org wrote:
Hey Sandy,
I can't remember if I officially emoted joy yet that you joined this list! I was thrilled to see you here: I meant to say that earlier but I think I didn't. So, yay, and welcome back :-)
And thank you for this list: it's really great :-) Sue
Sent from my phone: please forgive any typos or terseness. Please also forgive top-posting; I can't do in-line replies from my phone. On Feb 8, 2011 8:13 AM, "Sandra ordonez" sandratordonez@gmail.com wrote:
Now that I've vented, I've been thinking of Delphine's original
question(s)
regarding the why...this is what i came up with. *
- Improve the quality of information.* Information is shaped by
perspective, regardless of how NPOV you aim to be, and perspective is
shaped
by experience. When you experience the world in a certain perspective,
you
see things that others don't see. A Chinese immigrant in the United
States
may notice things that a American born may not see, just like it is very likely that a female may notice things their male counterparts don't see.
- Open doors to more groups*.The inclusion of women might have a domino
affect, and open doors for other groups, particularly those that are traditionally dis-empowered, such as people of color in the United
States.
(You can include whatever other group you want here..I can only speak to
the
US).
- Improved processes and systems.* Collaboration is improved by
diversity -
everyone in this group knows this. More female participation may result
in
better collaborative brainstorming and problem solvin.
*4) Better organization.* Studies reveal that women tend to be great multi-taskers. IMHO, women are great multitaskers because they also plan their world to be more "efficient" for multitasking. I can totally see a group of women helping improve the organization of Wikipedia's rules, background knowledge, presentation, etc.
*5) Stronger community. *Reports are also showing that more women than
men
are on social media. This is because women tend to focus on creating community. A larger, more sophisticated Wikipedian community is so
powerful,
I'm not even sure how to describe its potential in words. However, it
would
have the ability to help the projects but bring change worldwide.
- Better image. *Organizations that are ethical are usually favored and
respected by society, which increase's an org's success. I am not talking "left vs right," and this is not a philosophical question, it is a public relations one. Talk to any PR practioner and they can share why this
works,
and examples of organizations taking this PR strategy. And, at a minimum,
I
can guarantee it will increase how many women worldwide see the project, which btw are 50% of the world's population.
*7) Better parties and possibly more Wikilove!* As corny as it sounds, I
am
quite positive that more women will improve the festivities in any wiki
get
together, and possibly result in more wikilove :) lolol Why not!! What a perfect place to meet someone that shares your interest, and better
parties
are usually always welcomed.
*8) A better world society.* Wikipedia has this ability to affect the
world
and start revolutions in what seems to be very silent but effective ways.
I
really believe that the inclusion of women will have amazing
revolutionary
affects on the world, and make it better. Channeling Jeff Bridges, "information is really power, man." And maybe we have come to take for granted that the world is informed/educated through wikipedia on a daily basis. This has an effect.
*9) Its the right thing to do.* Wikipedia has always gone against the
grain,
even though at times it ruffled society's feathers b/c transparency in knowledge sharing is more important than the agenda of any group. Its
part
of the free culture movement, dedicated to empowering people worldwide,
and
has done much in that area. Why wouldn't it come together now to improve
on
this systematic problem that affects not only the project, but humans at large.
- Who else is going to do it? *No one has the ability to look and
tackle
this complex issue like Wikipedian community. No other community has the strength in numbers, intellect, and structure to address an issue like
this.
I guarantee that other groups will embrace any solutions the community finds, b/c its not Wikipedia is not only a pioneer, but its a "best-in-breed" virtual project that comes up with "best-in-breed" solutions.
-- Sandra Ordonez Web Astronaut
"Helping you rock out in the virtual world."
*www.collaborativenation.com*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Wow. Thanks, this kind of line of thinking is _exactly_ what I had in mind when asking the question. I think that trying to solve a problem when you have no clear reason to solve it leads to a dead end.
These reasons are exactly the kind of things we should keep in mind when trying to solve the problem.
Gracias, luna ;-)
Delphine
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Sandra ordonez sandratordonez@gmail.com wrote:
Now that I've vented, I've been thinking of Delphine's original question(s) regarding the why...this is what i came up with.
- Improve the quality of information. Information is shaped by perspective,
regardless of how NPOV you aim to be, and perspective is shaped by experience. When you experience the world in a certain perspective, you see things that others don't see. A Chinese immigrant in the United States may notice things that a American born may not see, just like it is very likely that a female may notice things their male counterparts don't see.
- Open doors to more groups.The inclusion of women might have a domino
affect, and open doors for other groups, particularly those that are traditionally dis-empowered, such as people of color in the United States. (You can include whatever other group you want here..I can only speak to the US).
- Improved processes and systems. Collaboration is improved by diversity -
everyone in this group knows this. More female participation may result in better collaborative brainstorming and problem solvin.
- Better organization. Studies reveal that women tend to be great
multi-taskers. IMHO, women are great multitaskers because they also plan their world to be more "efficient" for multitasking. I can totally see a group of women helping improve the organization of Wikipedia's rules, background knowledge, presentation, etc.
- Stronger community. Reports are also showing that more women than men are
on social media. This is because women tend to focus on creating community. A larger, more sophisticated Wikipedian community is so powerful, I'm not even sure how to describe its potential in words. However, it would have the ability to help the projects but bring change worldwide.
- Better image. Organizations that are ethical are usually favored and
respected by society, which increase's an org's success. I am not talking "left vs right," and this is not a philosophical question, it is a public relations one. Talk to any PR practioner and they can share why this works, and examples of organizations taking this PR strategy. And, at a minimum, I can guarantee it will increase how many women worldwide see the project, which btw are 50% of the world's population.
- Better parties and possibly more Wikilove! As corny as it sounds, I am
quite positive that more women will improve the festivities in any wiki get together, and possibly result in more wikilove :) lolol Why not!! What a perfect place to meet someone that shares your interest, and better parties are usually always welcomed.
- A better world society. Wikipedia has this ability to affect the world
and start revolutions in what seems to be very silent but effective ways. I really believe that the inclusion of women will have amazing revolutionary affects on the world, and make it better. Channeling Jeff Bridges, "information is really power, man." And maybe we have come to take for granted that the world is informed/educated through wikipedia on a daily basis. This has an effect.
- Its the right thing to do. Wikipedia has always gone against the grain,
even though at times it ruffled society's feathers b/c transparency in knowledge sharing is more important than the agenda of any group. Its part of the free culture movement, dedicated to empowering people worldwide, and has done much in that area. Why wouldn't it come together now to improve on this systematic problem that affects not only the project, but humans at large.
- Who else is going to do it? No one has the ability to look and tackle
this complex issue like Wikipedian community. No other community has the strength in numbers, intellect, and structure to address an issue like this. I guarantee that other groups will embrace any solutions the community finds, b/c its not Wikipedia is not only a pioneer, but its a "best-in-breed" virtual project that comes up with "best-in-breed" solutions.
-- Sandra Ordonez Web Astronaut
"Helping you rock out in the virtual world."
www.collaborativenation.com
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Aiiii, it feels like old times. :) Not only is Delphine calling me Luna, but I posted on Meta. Flashbacks!! LOL
I started a Gender Gap page, the list is linked from there. I know there are new-to-wiki people on the list, feel free to edit away. You can add, take away, etc.
On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Sandra ordonez sandratordonez@gmail.com wrote:
Now that I've vented, I've been thinking of Delphine's original question(s) regarding the why...this is what i came up with.
Will it be blogged somewhere?
Regards, Ole
And of all the emails sent recently on this list, this is probably my favorite :) Thank you to Delphine for asking the question. Thank you to Sandy to give it a try to answer.
Some emails on this list have been giving good points and good suggestions, but I do not think venting the various frustrations we have met on Wikipedia or in our professional life or in our personal life is going to really make for a big change.
My view would rather be that we indeed start with asking ourselves the question "What would women bring to Wikipedia ? Would that help us in our big dream to get more women participation ? " - Because if the answer is "we need more women to reach our goal of collecting and bringing knowledge to the world", great. - If the answer is "we need more women because equality should require that we have a 50%-50% men-women", then we fail. Making sure women are respected, listened to, involved, blablabla, is great. But that's not what we are collectively looking for. Our goal is not gender equality, right ?
Second, once we have identified the reason for more participation (if we have agreed it would be helpful), then we should identify what would be the indicators for success. Because again, forgive me for being bold... but if we set up an official goal of say-25% participation of women... then it means that what we are currently doing is working toward a goal of more "men-women equality". I personally do not care for this goal. I am here on Wikipedia to allow every one to have access to a complete, accurate, uptodate, neutral information. So, a goal of "more women" or a goal of "at least 25% women contributors" makes no sense to me.
If "improve the breadth of our articles" is our goal (to make sure lipstick and russian women biographies are properly covered), then set up a goal with regards to "content breadth". And implement a tracking system to follow evolution.
If "50% of women readers in north african countries" is our goal, then set up a goal with regards to "readership stats". And implement a tracking system to follow "readership stats".
If "getting good PR so that the press loves us and so that big foundations give us cash" is our goal, then set up a goal with regards to "25% women participation". And implement a tracking system to follow women participation and buzz the results.
But as long as we do not know what our "goals" are, it is weird to define indicators of success and weird to rely on stats that carry little significance.
Third, when goals and indicators are set up (and perhaps different groups will have different goals and indicators), then it will be time to foster the best conditions so that this happens over time. Some will choose a totally western strategy and organize "women day", "women awards", "special projects for women". Others will choose a more let-it-be strategy, merely avoiding the least favorable paths and influencing to get us on favorable paths. Usually, Wikipedians strategy is rather of the second type.
For those who understand French, I have blogged on the topic here: http://www.anthere.org/post/2011/02/09/Wikipedia%2C-les-femmes-et-la-philoso...
Anthere
On 2/8/11 2:13 PM, Sandra ordonez wrote:
Now that I've vented, I've been thinking of Delphine's original question(s) regarding the why...this is what i came up with. *
- Improve the quality of information.* Information is shaped by
perspective, regardless of how NPOV you aim to be, and perspective is shaped by experience. When you experience the world in a certain perspective, you see things that others don't see. A Chinese immigrant in the United States may notice things that a American born may not see, just like it is very likely that a female may notice things their male counterparts don't see.
- Open doors to more groups*.The inclusion of women might have a
domino affect, and open doors for other groups, particularly those that are traditionally dis-empowered, such as people of color in the United States. (You can include whatever other group you want here..I can only speak to the US).
- Improved processes and systems.* Collaboration is improved by
diversity - everyone in this group knows this. More female participation may result in better collaborative brainstorming and problem solvin.
*4) Better organization.* Studies reveal that women tend to be great multi-taskers. IMHO, women are great multitaskers because they also plan their world to be more "efficient" for multitasking. I can totally see a group of women helping improve the organization of Wikipedia's rules, background knowledge, presentation, etc.
*5) Stronger community. *Reports are also showing that more women than men are on social media. This is because women tend to focus on creating community. A larger, more sophisticated Wikipedian community is so powerful, I'm not even sure how to describe its potential in words. However, it would have the ability to help the projects but bring change worldwide.
- Better image. *Organizations that are ethical are usually favored
and respected by society, which increase's an org's success. I am not talking "left vs right," and this is not a philosophical question, it is a public relations one. Talk to any PR practioner and they can share why this works, and examples of organizations taking this PR strategy. And, at a minimum, I can guarantee it will increase how many women worldwide see the project, which btw are 50% of the world's population.
*7) Better parties and possibly more Wikilove!* As corny as it sounds, I am quite positive that more women will improve the festivities in any wiki get together, and possibly result in more wikilove :) lolol Why not!! What a perfect place to meet someone that shares your interest, and better parties are usually always welcomed.
*8) A better world society.* Wikipedia has this ability to affect the world and start revolutions in what seems to be very silent but effective ways. I really believe that the inclusion of women will have amazing revolutionary affects on the world, and make it better. Channeling Jeff Bridges, "information is really power, man." And maybe we have come to take for granted that the world is informed/educated through wikipedia on a daily basis. This has an effect.
*9) Its the right thing to do.* Wikipedia has always gone against the grain, even though at times it ruffled society's feathers b/c transparency in knowledge sharing is more important than the agenda of any group. Its part of the free culture movement, dedicated to empowering people worldwide, and has done much in that area. Why wouldn't it come together now to improve on this systematic problem that affects not only the project, but humans at large.
- Who else is going to do it? *No one has the ability to look and
tackle this complex issue like Wikipedian community. No other community has the strength in numbers, intellect, and structure to address an issue like this. I guarantee that other groups will embrace any solutions the community finds, b/c its not Wikipedia is not only a pioneer, but its a "best-in-breed" virtual project that comes up with "best-in-breed" solutions.
-- Sandra Ordonez Web Astronaut
"Helping you rock out in the virtual world."
*www.collaborativenation.com http://www.collaborativenation.com*
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap