up to you, Sarah which part of it do you trust? the outcome given the chosen setup? I have to reasons, either, for any doubt about the results

well, given Risker/Anne's statement no one knows, right? so my argument says that since most editors do not gender-identify, it would be wrong to say anything, really

and hence any study of "gender gap" in Wikipedia (or any other project of its kind) had better rely on other data than these - which is why I think that in general such a discussion of basics might be useful for Laura's project, too - I'd say go for it, Laura :-)

thank you, yes, you were so kind as to give me the contact data last time I raised the issue here, for which thanks again I'd be more happy to discuss the matter more thorougly here first - or maybe anyone knows of another public forum which might be interested in this topic?

discussions like the ones we do on this list, there is quite ample data other than numbers that allow us to address the phenomenon of a perceived gender gap in Wikipedia et al. and of course then take positive action to remedy any perceived imbalance

I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment.

Well, I'll be honest: I don't really care about detailed research unless it shows our numbers changing at this point :-) (better or worse)... I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment. So perhaps I shouldn't even bother with this conversation. We all know we have few women editing :-/ Sar Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :) On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:07 AM, koltzenburg(a)w4w.net wrote: > Thank you, Sarah > >> Data doesn't equal patriarchy > > agree, I was not stipulating this, I am pointing to the philosophy that feeds into the setup of such an

> in the first place > >> I trust the survey. > > up to you, Sarah > which part of it do you trust? the outcome given the chosen setup? > I have to reasons, either, for any doubt about the results > > my argument is to take a close look at the setup of any statistics exercise first and then ask, maybe,

> benefits most from the results, and then we are well into partiarchally inspired politics, I guess, > anyway, this is the point I am trying to make > > the task is, I think, to work on the following: > which question would yield results that people on this list will feel motivated by to turn into sustainable > positive action about a perceived gender gap among Wikipedia editors? > >> And having >> numbers is honestly more powerful than saying "oh most editors are men." > > well, given Risker/Anne's statement >>>> (most editors do not gender-identify ... > > no one knows, right? > so my argument says that since most editors do not gender-identify, it would be wrong to say anything, > really > > and hence any study of "gender gap" in Wikipedia (or any other project of its kind) had better rely on

> data than these - which is why I think that in general such a discussion of basics might be useful for

> project, too - I'd say go for it, Laura :-) > >> If you'd like to talk to the organizers of the survey, I'm sure they'd be >> happy to discuss it. > > thank you, yes, you were so kind as to give me the contact data last time I raised the issue here, for

> thanks again > > I'd be more happy to discuss the matter more thorougly here first > - or maybe anyone knows of another public forum which might be interested in this topic? > >> Keep in mind the survey is people stating their gender in the survey >> itself, not their userspace/account. > > indeed, agree, > and this is precisely why any implicit claims on the relevance of the results should not be writ large in

> description > > let us do away with looking at numbers first... as far as I can glean from discussions like the ones we do

> this list, there is quite ample data other than numbers that allow us to address the phenomenon of a > perceived gender gap in Wikipedia et al. and of course then take positive action to remedy any

> imbalance > > best & cheers > Claudia > > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:35:14 -0700, Sarah Stierch wrote >> Keep in mind the survey is people stating their gender in the survey >> itself, not their userspace/account. When I take the survey I can choose a >> gender or no response. (and maybe something else..I dont remember and I'm >> on my phone..) I am sure plenty of people who do not choose gender on >> their profile choose it anonymously on the profile. >> >> I trust the survey. Data doesn't equal patriarchy when it is the community >> who is choosing to identify their gender in said survey. And having >> numbers is honestly more powerful than saying "oh most editors are men." >> >> If you'd like to talk to the organizers of the survey, I'm sure they'd be >> happy to discuss it. >> >> Sarah >> >> Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :) >> >> On Jun 17, 2012, at 11:22 PM, koltzenburg(a)w4w.net wrote: >> >>> Thank you Risker/Anne >>> for this statement which I think is true: >>> >>>> (most editors do not gender-identify ... >>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2012-June/002876.html >>> >>> what follows from this is, in my opinion, that any specific-looking numbers the Wikimedia Foundation > (e.g., >>> Wikipedia editor survey) chooses to have published about how many women act as editors should

> be >>> trusted and hence not be perpetuated >>> >>> and best not in our list description, either... >>> "The most recent Wikipedia editor survey indicates that the percentage of female contributors in > Wikimedia >>> projects is approximately nine percent." >>> >>> could this starting sentence be changed, maybe, to reflect the fact stated by Anne/Risker and not

> into >>> such a seemingly negatively perceived climate in the first place? >>> >>> ah, yes, this is me again, trying to raise some awareness also about the promotional paradoxes in > results >>> created by patriarchally-inspired statistics exercises that purport to come up with facts, >>> apologies if this makes you groan, maybe again, >>> I will stick to my point though until I hear better arguments - which, certainly, I am happy to take

_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

Claudia, I understand where you are coming from. But talking about the demographics of WMF projects at the level of detail WMF is going now is somewhat newish. Not talking about the disparity in the past did not fix the problem. So, drawing attention to the issue seemed like a good idea. :-) I tend to think that information is powerful in that it educates and changes behavior. If anyone has suggestions as to how to make the research and data analysis better or just want a better understanding of how it is done, I encourage you to talk to the people doing the research. I have done this in the past and found them very approachable and more than willing to listen to ideas. Sydney Poore User:FloNight On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:52 AM, <koltzenburg(a)w4w.net> wrote: > Sarah, thanks > > > I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment. > > fair enough, > the "versus" reads a little strange to me in this context but never mind > ;-) > > in my view of the matter, and my thanks to Laura for filling in with a few > concrete examples, taking positive > action in this context would mean, I guess, to stop talking about any > numbers that we might have to > consider to be harmful - precisely: harmful for swift and wonderful > encouragement for *positive* action > > back to action, then > including research ;-) > Claudia > > On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:36:10 -0700, Sarah Stierch wrote > > Well, I'll be honest: > > > > I don't really care about detailed research unless it shows our numbers > > changing at this point :-) (better or worse)... > > > > I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment. So > > perhaps I shouldn't even bother with this conversation. We all know we > > have few women editing :-/ > > > > Sar > > > > Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :) > > > > On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:07 AM, koltzenburg(a)w4w.net wrote: > > > > > Thank you, Sarah > > > > > >> Data doesn't equal patriarchy > > > > > > agree, I was not stipulating this, I am pointing to the philosophy > that feeds into the setup of such an > inquiry > > > in the first place > > > > > >> I trust the survey. > > > > > > up to you, Sarah > > > which part of it do you trust? the outcome given the chosen setup? > > > I have to reasons, either, for any doubt about the results > > > > > > my argument is to take a close look at the setup of any statistics > exercise first and then ask, maybe, > who > > > benefits most from the results, and then we are well into > partiarchally inspired politics, I guess, > > > anyway, this is the point I am trying to make > > > > > > the task is, I think, to work on the following: > > > which question would yield results that people on this list will feel > motivated by to turn into sustainable > > > positive action about a perceived gender gap among Wikipedia editors? > > > > > >> And having > > >> numbers is honestly more powerful than saying "oh most editors are > men." > > > > > > well, given Risker/Anne's statement > > >>>> (most editors do not gender-identify ... > > > > > > no one knows, right? > > > so my argument says that since most editors do not gender-identify, it > would be wrong to say anything, > > > really > > > > > > and hence any study of "gender gap" in Wikipedia (or any other project > of its kind) had better rely on > other > > > data than these - which is why I think that in general such a > discussion of basics might be useful for > Laura's > > > project, too - I'd say go for it, Laura :-) > > > > > >> If you'd like to talk to the organizers of the survey, I'm sure > they'd be > > >> happy to discuss it. > > > > > > thank you, yes, you were so kind as to give me the contact data last > time I raised the issue here, for > which > > > thanks again > > > > > > I'd be more happy to discuss the matter more thorougly here first > > > - or maybe anyone knows of another public forum which might be > interested in this topic? > > > > > >> Keep in mind the survey is people stating their gender in the survey > > >> itself, not their userspace/account. > > > > > > indeed, agree, > > > and this is precisely why any implicit claims on the relevance of the > results should not be writ large in > our list > > > description > > > > > > let us do away with looking at numbers first... as far as I can glean > from discussions like the ones we do > on > > > this list, there is quite ample data other than numbers that allow us > to address the phenomenon of a > > > perceived gender gap in Wikipedia et al. and of course then take > positive action to remedy any > perceived > > > imbalance > > > > > > best & cheers > > > Claudia > > > > > > On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:35:14 -0700, Sarah Stierch wrote > > >> Keep in mind the survey is people stating their gender in the survey > > >> itself, not their userspace/account. When I take the survey I can > choose a > > >> gender or no response. (and maybe something else..I dont remember and > I'm > > >> on my phone..) I am sure plenty of people who do not choose gender on > > >> their profile choose it anonymously on the profile. > > >> > > >> I trust the survey. Data doesn't equal patriarchy when it is the > community > > >> who is choosing to identify their gender in said survey. And having > > >> numbers is honestly more powerful than saying "oh most editors are > men." > > >> > > >> If you'd like to talk to the organizers of the survey, I'm sure > they'd be > > >> happy to discuss it. > > >> > > >> Sarah > > >> > > >> Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! > :) > > >> > > >> On Jun 17, 2012, at 11:22 PM, koltzenburg(a)w4w.net wrote: > > >> > > >>> Thank you Risker/Anne > > >>> for this statement which I think is true: > > >>> > > >>>> (most editors do not gender-identify ... > > >>> http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2012-June/002876.html > > >>> > > >>> what follows from this is, in my opinion, that any specific-looking > numbers the Wikimedia Foundation > > > (e.g., > > >>> Wikipedia editor survey) chooses to have published about how many > women act as editors should > not > > > be > > >>> trusted and hence not be perpetuated > > >>> > > >>> and best not in our list description, either... > > >>> "The most recent Wikipedia editor survey indicates that the > percentage of female contributors in > > > Wikimedia > > >>> projects is approximately nine percent." > > >>> > > >>> could this starting sentence be changed, maybe, to reflect the fact > stated by Anne/Risker and not > feed > > > into > > >>> such a seemingly negatively perceived climate in the first place? > > >>> > > >>> ah, yes, this is me again, trying to raise some awareness also about > the promotional paradoxes in > > > results > > >>> created by patriarchally-inspired statistics exercises that purport > to come up with facts, > > >>> apologies if this makes you groan, maybe again, > > >>> I will stick to my point though until I hear better arguments - > which, certainly, I am happy to take > on > > > this > > >>> point > > >>> > > >>> :-) thanks & cheers, > > >>> Claudia > > >>> koltzenburg(a)w4w.net > > >>> > > >>> _______________________________________________ > > >>> Gendergap mailing list > > >>> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Gendergap mailing list > > >> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > > > > > > thanks & cheers, > > > Claudia > > > koltzenburg(a)w4w.net > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Gendergap mailing list > > > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gendergap mailing list > > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > thanks & cheers, > Claudia > koltzenburg(a)w4w.net > > > _______________________________________________ > Gendergap mailing list > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >

_______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

It's obviously too early to dismantle a gender equality project however. Maybe I can point to another factoid which demonstrates a generative, systematic bias: only 20% of notable person biographies on WP are about women [1].

IMO, recruiting more women editors is an excellent way to combat that bias, because it doesn't presuppose we know how to fix the problem... only that we know some people who can do the job.

laura(a)fanhistory.com: I would hope not, actually!

But a grassroots approach will give more people the chance to express whatever it is that interests them, maybe join a few mailing lists and committees, etc. Maybe some of these new editors will be inspired by gender justice projects.

Anyway, the reason I pointed to the notably male biographies was to refute the OP's suggestion that we be vague about gender discrepancies on wikipedia... We certainly can't hide these extremely obvious facts, so let's improve the mailing list description--by linking to something fun like https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap ?

in my view of the matter, and my thanks to Laura for filling in with a few concrete examples, taking positive action in this context would mean, I guess, to stop talking about any numbers that we might have to consider to be harmful - precisely: harmful for swift and wonderful encouragement for *positive* action

Well, I'll be honest: I don't really care about detailed research unless it shows our numbers changing at this point :-) (better or worse)... I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment. So perhaps I shouldn't even bother with this conversation. We all know we have few women editing :-/

I'm glad that a lot of what the Foundation seem to be doing is trying to be evidence-based and are analysing the effectiveness of the various interventions (Teahouse, FeedbackDashboard, AFT5). One thing that probably ought to be done is to demand of the Foundation and of chapters that any studies they do into the effectiveness of outreach and intervention programmes include gender inclusiveness as a measure in stats-gathering where possible.