Note that Lam et al. came to the same 16.1% figure through completely different methods in 2011. http://files.grouplens.org/papers/wp-gender-wikisym2011.pdf
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:48 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl wrote:
hi,
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
the current methods are far from perfect.
in your opinion, in which respect do they need to be improved?
the thing is, with Internet research we often have to rely on anonymous declarations. It would be nice to e.g. cross-reference with data from social networks, but it is not possible to introduce ethically without user consent, and without the consent the problem of opt-in selective bias is still real. What we can do (and do) is triangulation of methods.
has anyone published on that, or are there any "non-published" links available?
I think the most interesting approach to the problem is covered by Mako and Aaron: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782
best,
dj
best, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
---------- Original Message ----------- From:Dariusz Jemielniak darekj@alk.edu.pl To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 14:58:56 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you that a lot of data we have is outdated, and that there are way too many generalizations about Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki.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.
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
------- End of Original Message -------
--
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