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(a)gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
l(a)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]\
1
http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?
q=claim%5B31%3A5%5D%20and%20claim%5B21%3A6581072%5D
On 15 February 2015 at 09:34,
<koltzenburg(a)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(a)w4w.net
> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> ---------- Original Message -----------
> From:Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
> l(a)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(a)w4w.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi GerardM,
> > >
> > > why not have a guess ;-)
> > >
> > > Claudia
> > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > From:Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
> > > l(a)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(a)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(a)w4w.net
> > > > > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> > > > >
> > > > > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > > > From:Jane Darnell <jane023(a)gmail.com>
> > > > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
> research-
> > > > > l(a)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(a)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(a)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(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi all,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
> readers?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > > > Yana
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > > > > Gendergap mailing list
> > > > > > > Gendergap(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > > > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > ------- End of Original Message -------
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list
> > > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > >
> ------- End of Original Message -------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wiki-research-l mailing list
> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
>
------- End of Original Message -------