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@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@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,
> >
> > 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
> > > ---------- 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@wikimedia.org>
wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia
readers?
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > _______________________________________________
> > > > 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