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]\
>
> 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@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 -------
_______________________________________________
Wiki-research-l mailing list
Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l