No data point is beside the point. It simply awaits more data points to be
beside it, so we can plot the trend.
But I would agree that if an organisation sets a target (25% women in this
particular case) and then does not put in place a means of measuring the
progress against that target, one has to question the point of establishing
a target.
I note that a new strategic planning exercise is taking place. It would be a
good time to encourage the thinking that strategic plans need metrics and a
framework in which selected proposals can be tested (e.g. A/B testing) to
see their impact on metrics. For example, I've suggested that we should make
"undo" a little bit harder by additionally requiring a selection of "which
policy" justifies it and a prominent warning if the user is a newbie (to try
to get some respect paid to WP:NOBITE). This has two purposes, prevents "I
don't like it" undo, provides clearer feedback to the person's whose edit is
undone (and to those of us looking on), provides better metrics about the
impact of policies and the policing of those policies, etc. Imagine if we
were also collecting a few more demographics about users. We'd then know a
whole lot more about which categories of contributors were being reverted by
which category of contributors under which policies. If we see concerning
patterns emerging, then we have the evidence to push for changes in the
policy or its policing or .
Kerry
_____
From: wiki-research-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org
[mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard
Meijssen
Sent: Sunday, 15 February 2015 5:05 PM
To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities
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