<b><span style="font-size: 25pt;">
<a alt="po59wc42cngm1azbq59
jf47sat1rk0w2hlofg13
qf7z5rovyqtd0gtqxu9l"
id="3t5kevvd64ujuztrjlt
7kbvibd4b78aijnwnfnq"
href="gsr6os76o3xeyp.lm3.me/sd_wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org/rhf2
z3tng47zlogg4ecjau_ViewMsg" >
Click here to see the attached video</a>
On 12/02/2011 04:11 AM, wiki-research-l-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org wrote:
> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 16:23:44 +0100
> From: emijrp <emijrp(a)gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] [Gendergap] [Foundation-l] Fundraising is
> for men
> To: Increasing female participation in Wikimedia projects
> <gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
> Cc: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List
> <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>, Research into Wikimedia content and
> communities <wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
2011/12/1 Carol Moore <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net>
>> > On 11/29/2011 5:19 PM, emijrp wrote:
(clipped)
> Better, make Wikipedia friendly to disabled people, the great forgotten
> excluded people group. For example, blind people can't sign up because of
> Wikipedia captcha (there is no sound captcha
> https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4845). That is a real
> barrier which Wikimedia Foundation have to solve putting resources.
>
> Where is the accessibility mailing list? Accessibility is a recommendation
> by W3C since 1997, and we are in the top ten websites, as WMF likes to
> boast.
I disagree strongly with emijrp on much of this topic, which I will not
go into here because (a) it's offtopic for this list and (b) the
Wikimedia movement has already agreed that increasing inclusivity to
women in the Wikimedia projects is important.
emijrp, thank you for drawing my attention to bug 4845. I added it to
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Accessibility
I see there was an Wikimedia accessibility hackathon led by Katie
Filbert (User:Aude) in Washington, DC in late November.
http://www.wikimediadc.org/wiki/Accessibility_hackathon At that event,
per http://www.wikimediadc.org/wiki/Accessibility_hackathon/Fixes ,
"Katie replaced an inaccessible captcha on the "create a new account"
page of the wikimediadc.org website, using a more accessible captcha
that features an audio recognition process." I'll contact her to ask if
that's the same switch that needs to be made for Wikimedia sites, and
whether she could take care of that.
And of course if you think there should be an accessibility mailing
list, you should start one!
Sorry for being offtopic.
--
Sumana Harihareswara
Volunteer Development Coordinator
Wikimedia Foundation
The Wikimedia Research Committee is launching a survey to understand:
1) what data the Wikimedia Foundation should collect, host and share (on top of the public datasets that we already publish)
2) the technical and computational requirements that would allow you to reuse these data to build cool applications and run new research
Please give us your input and help us shape the future data/research infrastructure for Wikimedia.
http://bit.ly/WikimediaData
Best,
Dario
2011/12/1 Carol Moore <carolmooredc(a)verizon.net>
> On 11/29/2011 5:19 PM, emijrp wrote:
> >
> >
> > So, the first step would be to try and figure out if women are
> > visiting the site and not editing or just not visiting at all, before
> > saying nonsense about sexism and Wikipedia community.
>
> Fundraising from women is an interesting topic. You may think comments
> about sexism and the Wikipedia community are nonsense, but guess what.
> Women who take a lot of sexist nonsense AT wikipedia sure aren't going
> to donate TO wikipedia, are they?
>
> Also, since women in general are busier with work AND family
> responsibilities, so often the women who have the most time to edit are
> unemployed, disabled, retired or otherwise on limited incomes.
>
[citation needed]
Furthermore, editing Wikipedia only requires 30 minutes a day/week. I'm
sure all women waste more time watching TV. But watching TV is funnier for
most the people.
In the other hand, looks like women in all ages have time to waste in
Facebook
http://www.kenburbary.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Image1_thumb3.png And
gender balance is fifty-fifty.
Finally, if the reason for the low female editors proportion is time, how
can Wikipedia solve that? Are we going to pay to female editors for their
time?
> I can
> think of a few. Besides a ten spot here and a ten spot there, we can't
> give large amounts of money.
>
But there are women with big bucks out
> there giving lots to women-friendly organizations left and right. We
> must make Wikipedia women friendly to get their money.
>
You are wrong. To see donation banners and to donate only reading is
required, not editing. Are you going to say that only poor women read
Wikipedia?
By they way, making Wikipedia women friendly? What does that mean? Is that
a new politically correct science?
Better, make Wikipedia friendly to disabled people, the great forgotten
excluded people group. For example, blind people can't sign up because of
Wikipedia captcha (there is no sound captcha
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4845). That is a real
barrier which Wikimedia Foundation have to solve putting resources.
Where is the accessibility mailing list? Accessibility is a recommendation
by W3C since 1997, and we are in the top ten websites, as WMF likes to
boast.
> Anyway, putting down one of the main concerns of this list as nonsense
> is not helpful.
>
Sure. For your information, this mailing list is a insult to the real
excluded people.
>
> Thanks.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
