Like being a police office, being an admin might not be synonymous with leadership, but it does come with the power to control others, so it is synonymous with authority. So it is an indicator worth including. You could extend those stats to steward, Board of Trustees, too. What about the staff of WMF? What are the ratios there? It’s not that any one indicator is necessarily significant. When it comes to gender balance, the more stats the better to confound the deniers.
The Clubhouse paper has some data on reversion of male/female edits and male/female survival rates (IIRC)
http://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf
although I think short-term survival rates of new editors is problematic because many new users don’t self-identify as male or female in the short timeframe that they are active. It probably takes a while for many new users to explore preferences and create user pages and worked how to self-identify in various ways (if they chose to do so).
Kerry
From: Wiki-research-l [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Pine W Sent: Saturday, 21 November 2015 4:49 PM To: Wiki Research-l wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] Wikipedia gender gap/inequality indicators
It would be interesting to compare attrition, "failure" and "success" attributes of self-identified males and females on a variety of metrics.
IMO there is quite a persistent misunderstandung in scholarship about Wikipedia that adminship is directly synonymous with "leadership", but you could still compare admin-related stats between self-identified male and female populations.
Pine
On Nov 20, 2015 10:37 PM, "Piotr Konieczny" <piokon@post.pl mailto:piokon@post.pl > wrote:
Outside the widely popular percentage of female editors on Wikipedia/WMF projects in general, and the percentage of Wikipedia biographical articles about females, is there anything else that has been used in literature / existing studies that you'd consider worth mentioning?
Thanks,