Hi Bryce, interesting thoughts,
can you quickly explain to me what you mean by "forms of information"?
best,
Claudia
koltzenburg@w4w.net
GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
---------- Original Message -----------
From:Bryce Peake <brycepeake@gmail.com>
To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research-
l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:33:38 -0800
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on gender
stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> can start to build *SOCIO*technical> Hello all,
>
> I agree with Claudia's point - counting two
> genders is pretty outdated when you look at all of
> the literature on gender AND sex as more fluid
> (scientifically speaking) than binaries do
> justice. This also makes me agree that the "gender
> gap" is a bad way to continue bashing our heads
> over this problem. What we want, methinks (please
> disagree), is an encyclopedia where people from
> any point on the gender/sex spectrum feel welcome
> to contribute, and where we have a space welcoming
> of -- and not hostile towards -- diverse forms of
> information. That would suggest to me that the
> ontological/count 'em all there approach to "how
> many editors of operationalized genders" is not
> confronting the actual problem (since some people
> just don't like to edit Wikipedia).
>
> Just an idea, then, to parallel Claudia's: we
> probably want a type of experimental design, where
> we can follow people from all across the
> gender/sex spectrum as they encounter, engage, and
> edit Wikipedia. Using those experiences, then, we
> responses/mechanisms to mitigate the hostilities
> people experience based on gendered social
> dynamics (all without reducing people to poorly
> operationalized gender/sex binaries).
>
> That's not to say I don't enjoy massive surveys,
> just that they seem ill suited for the actual
> research problem.
>
> Bryce
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:21 AM,
> <koltzenburg@w4w.net> wrote:
>
> > Hi Sidney and everyone else,
> >
> > it seems to me that this list might be turned into a research ideas
> > switchboard, here's some of my thoughts
> >
> > my impression is that counting just two genders is outdated, and maybe
> > calling a phenomenon a "gender gap" might therefore no longer be
suitable,
> > either,
> > anyone have any ideas for a solution here?
> >
> > we might be looking into the dynamics of power games from a slightly
> > different angle,
> > maybe someone could do some in-depth interviews with Wikimedians
> > officially identifying as male who are willing to reflect on wm-related
> > situations where they would possibly have felt better off as non-males
> >
> > actually, this idea just emerged from the back of my head, where I found
a
> > previous thought experiment (from a Miscellany_for_deletion discussion
on
> > enWP) still lingering a bit, which started in this way:
> >
> > * meta: in-principle debates usually show how rules are made to work
(and
> > kept up) that have been defined by a majority of people. Now let's do a
> > small
> > thought experiment: Imagine that the [...] page is a lovely place to
> > contribute
> > to. Then imagine that any other page you in principle wish to contribute
> > to is
> > actually a place you do not wish to be on because the climate among
users
> > is
> > unbearable to you. Next step: Please phrase the implicit rules that keep
me
> > off that page and make them explicit here. Let's see what everyone
might
> > come up with. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
> >
> > :WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK comes to mind. [...] 17:39, 2 February 2015
> > (UTC)
> >
> > ::Well then, given the thought experiment setting, why does just this
one
> > come to your mind, [...]? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2015
> > (UTC)
> >
> > :::The section please introduce yourself is a forum for discussion not
> > related
> > to building an encylopedia. It's social in nature with some ambiguous
> > goals. I
> > think frankly it is an attempt to set up her own quasi GGTF since her
> > compatriots were banned. [...] 16:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
> >
> > ::::Thanks, and as for compatriots, next step in the thought experiment,
> > [...],
> > is precisely to now address that other, disagreeable, space and "phrase
the
> > implicit rules that keep me off that page", any ideas as to how
> > compatriotism
> > might express itself over there? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 08:40, 5 February
> > 2015 (UTC)
> >
> > ---
> >
> > any thoughts are welcome
> >
> > best,
> > Claudia
> > koltzenburg@w4w.net
> > GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
> >
> > ---------- Original Message -----------
> > From:Sydney Poore <sydney.poore@gmail.com>
> > To:Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>, Research into Wikimedia
content
> > and communities <wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:49:05 -0500
> > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> >
> > > Hello Dariusz and everyone else,
> > >
> > > I'm interested in sharing ideas about the best way
> > > to discuss the gender gap in the wikimedia movement.
> > >
> > > While more information is always useful and at
> > > times necessary in order to measure change
> > > properly, if the previous data seems to still
> > > match the day to day observations pretty well then
> > > discounting the previous data as wrong just
> > > because it is outdated doesn't seem sensible.
> > >
> > > Since I've had the opportunity to observe the
> > > gender of wikimedia affiliated groups (both
> > > official and informal) from around the world, I
> > > can say with confidence that the wikimedia
> > > movement is still dominated by males. Both on and
> > > off line, except for diversity related events, I'm
> > > often the only women participating in discussions
> > > and rarely does the ratio exceed 3 in 10.
> > >
> > > To have my observation better documented would be
> > > great :-) I hope that more wikimedia organizations
> > > document the gender mix of content creators who
> > > are affiliated with their organization so that
> > > better research can be done.
> > >
> > > I encourage everyone to look at the up coming WMF
> > > Inspire Gender Gap grant campaign and see if they
> > > can find an opportunity to work on better data
> > > collection during this high profile campaign.
> > >
> > >
> >
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire_Grants_%E2%80%93
> > _Gender_gap_campaign
> > >
> > > Sydney
> > >
> > > Sydney Poore
> > > User:FloNight
> > > Wikipedian in Residence
> > > at Cochrane Collaboration
> > >
> > > On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Dariusz
> > > Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
> > >
> > > > hi there,
> > > >
> > > > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you that a lot of data we
> > > > have is outdated, and that there are way too many generalizations
about
> > > > Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki. As Aaron and Mako pointed out in
> > their
> > > > paper (referred to by Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to
our
> > > > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods are far from
> > perfect.
> > As
> > > > far as I recall, they did a follow-up on this topic, and maybe a
> > > > publication coming up?
> > > >
> > > > best,
> > > >
> > > > dariusz
> > > >
> > > > On Sun, Feb 15, 2015 at 11:50 AM, <koltzenburg@w4w.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer,
> > > >>
> > > >> hi all,
> > > >> can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in
> > quantitative
> > > >> studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for
example,
> > and
> > > >> also
> > > >> changing the framework in which the data were created)
> > > >>
> > > >> another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host of
> > > >> languages,
> > > >> statistical news are rarely accompanied by qualifiers as to which
> > language
> > > >> version (community) the data were created in/from.
> > > >> my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite
> > different
> > > >> from
> > > >> results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one
another
> > > >> differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a
> > differently
> > > >> gendered status in different communities, etc.
> > > >>
> > > >> the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of
> > Wikipedia
> > > >> readers" question that this thread started with,
> > > >>
> > > >> best,
> > > >> Claudia
> > > >> koltzenburg@w4w.net
> > > >>
> > > >> ---------- Original Message -----------
> > > >> From:Jeremy Foote <jdfoote1@gmail.com>
> > > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
> > > >> l@lists.wikimedia.org>
> > > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600
> > > >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
Fwd:
> > > >> [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> > > >>
> > > >> > Mako Hill and Aaron Shaw wrote a paper which
> > > >> > combined a 2008 WMF survey with Pew Research to
> > > >> > try to find a less biased estimation of the Wikipedia
> > > >> > gender gap. Their paper is titled "The Wikipedia
> > > >> > Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey
> > > >> > Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation",
> > > >> > and is at
> > > >> > http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?
> > > >> id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 .
> > > >> >
> > > >> > It's not a perfect fit for eliminating the bias to
> > > >> > participate in editor surveys, but it's a step
> > > >> > toward a more realistic value for the gender gap
> > > >> > (although it's still pretty bleak - with only 16%
> > > >> > of gobal editors estimated to be female).
> > > >> >
> > > >> > Best,
> > > >> > Jeremy
> > > >> >
> > > >> > On Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 11:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen
> > > >> <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> > > >> > > wrote:
> > > >> >
> > > >> > > 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
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >>
> > > >> > >
> > > >> > > _______________________________________________
> > > >> > > 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
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > >
> > > > __________________________
> > > > prof. dr hab. Dariusz Jemielniak
> > > > kierownik katedry Zarządzania Międzynarodowego
> > > > i centrum badawczego CROW
> > > > Akademia Leona Koźmińskiego
> > > > http://www.crow.alk.edu.pl
> > > >
> > > > członek Akademii Młodych Uczonych Polskiej Akademii Nauk
> > > > członek Komitetu Polityki Naukowej MNiSW
> > > >
> > > > Wyszła pierwsza na świecie etnografia Wikipedii "Common
Knowledge?
> > An
> > > > Ethnography of Wikipedia" (2014, Stanford University Press) mojego
> > > > autorstwa http://www.sup.org/book.cgi?id=24010
> > > >
> > > > Recenzje
> > > > Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/fdc/welcome_mjx.shtml
> > > > Pacific Standard:
> > > > http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-and-culture/killed-
wikipedia-
> > 93777/
> > > > Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-
> > wikipedia
> > > > The Wikipedian:
> > > > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-
> > knowledge
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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