Hi GerardM,
two questions come to mind re your mail:
is your reply (esp. in the second part) a statement about something like "enoughness"?
what does any number of a certain kind of articles in any version have to do with the issue at hand?
and here's two hypotheses:
1. the relevance of research cannot always be judged by its year of publication alone
2. hotness of a topic is most likely nothing much more than a qualifier relative to social and financial factors from which follows that scientific inquiry is no "neutral" business but dependent on categories like "effect of gender relations in a given field of inquiry including the motivations underlying any decisions on the part of its sponsors"
best, Claudia
---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:37:21 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Hoi, Where you say that we need to be careful with such things, the phenomenon has been recognised. It is receiving attention and there have been plenty signals that it has been taken up all over the world. It deserves continued attention but we need to learn about this process. Quoting from research that is old does not serve a purpose.
Arguably the coverage of the politics of Djibouti is not as good as the politics of Chicago.That is easy to recognise and it is relatively easy to understand how and if this issue is appreciated as such. One easy way to recognise that it is not really "hot" is that there is no research about it. Thanks, GerardM
PS currently there are at least 388991 articles about women [1]\
q=claim%5B31%3A5%5D%20and%20claim%5B21%3A6581072%5D
On 15 February 2015 at 09:34, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
ah, thanks, GerardM,
so -- if I read your reaction correctly -- the underlying hypothesis on which it is based says that much has changed (or may have) since those old
days?
What information do you base this hypothesis on?
my main point, anyway, is to cast a doubt as to the methods used in
such
statistical work and interpretation of the outcome, any comments on
that?
see also "Clearly, we need to measure some things, but we also need to
be
highly skeptical of what we choose to measure, how we do so, and what
we
do with the resulting data." Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (17 December 2014), Measure, manage, manipulate, http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/measure-manage-
manipulate.html
best, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:05:24 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Hoi, Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk about diversity, it is because it was recognised as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very much improved. Consequently it is very much beside the point. Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2015 at 07:48, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi GerardM,
why not have a guess ;-)
Claudia ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Hoi, What year are we living ? Thanks, GerardM
On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary
paradigm),
well...
I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful
considerations,
author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An
ethnography
of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15
Dariusz Jemielniak writes: "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91
percent of
all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011]
This
figure
may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online
survey
advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073
complete
and
valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more
likely
to
respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of
self-declarations of
gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al.
2011)
may be
distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their
gender
in
a
community perceived as male dominated."
additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also
described
by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one
quoted
above)
is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to
resist
any
changes;
and, last but not least, one might argue that the group
perceived
as
"in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes
most
rewarding,
and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible
and not
least
quote from them persistently, too...
any rebuttals from stats experts here?
best, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
---------- Original Message ----------- From:Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100 Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> Forwarding here in case anyone has information > that could benefit Yana > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > From: Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com > Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 9:44 AM > Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > To: "Addressing gender equity and exploring ways > to increase the participation of women within > Wikimedia projects." < gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> > > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an > external party to conduct a survey and the results > (translated to English) are here:
https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd
f > > The study was split into two parts; one on the > contributors and one on the "users", aka readers. > Users were 50/50 male female (page 51), > contributors were 88% male, 6% female, and 6% > would not say (page 26) > > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 8:11 AM, Yana Welinder > yana@wikimedia.org wrote: > > > Hi all, > > > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
readers?
> > > > Thanks, > > Yana > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Gendergap mailing list > > Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org > > To manage your subscription preferences, including
unsubscribing,
please > > visit: > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > ------- End of Original Message -------
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
------- End of Original Message -------