Hello all, 

I agree with Claudia's point - counting two genders is pretty outdated when you look at all of the literature on gender AND sex as more fluid (scientifically speaking) than binaries do justice. This also makes me agree that the "gender gap" is a bad way to continue bashing our heads over this problem. What we want, methinks (please disagree), is an encyclopedia where people from any point on the gender/sex spectrum feel welcome to contribute, and where we have a space welcoming of -- and not hostile towards -- diverse forms of information. That would suggest to me that the ontological/count 'em all there approach to "how many editors of operationalized genders" is not confronting the actual problem (since some people just don't like to edit Wikipedia). 

Just an idea, then, to parallel Claudia's: we probably want a type of experimental design, where we can follow people from all across the gender/sex spectrum as they encounter, engage, and edit Wikipedia. Using those experiences, then, we can start to build SOCIOtechnical responses/mechanisms to mitigate the hostilities people experience based on gendered social dynamics (all without reducing people to poorly operationalized gender/sex binaries). 

That's not to say I don't enjoy massive surveys, just that they seem ill suited for the actual research problem. 

Bryce

On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:21 AM, <koltzenburg@w4w.net> wrote:
Hi Sidney and everyone else,

it seems to me that this list might be turned into a research ideas
switchboard, here's some of my thoughts

my impression is that counting just two genders is outdated, and maybe
calling a phenomenon a "gender gap" might therefore no longer be suitable,
either,
anyone have any ideas for a solution here?

we might be looking into the dynamics of power games from a slightly
different angle,
maybe someone could do some in-depth interviews with Wikimedians
officially identifying as male who are willing to reflect on wm-related
situations where they would possibly have felt better off as non-males

actually, this idea just emerged from the back of my head, where I found a
previous thought experiment (from a Miscellany_for_deletion discussion on
enWP) still lingering a bit, which started in this way:

* meta: in-principle debates usually show how rules are made to work (and
kept up) that have been defined by a majority of people. Now let's do a small
thought experiment: Imagine that the [...] page is a lovely place to contribute
to. Then imagine that any other page you in principle wish to contribute to is
actually a place you do not wish to be on because the climate among users is
unbearable to you. Next step: Please phrase the implicit rules that keep me
off that page and make them explicit here. Let's see what everyone might
come up with. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 17:35, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

:WP:NOTASOCIALNETWORK comes to mind. [...] 17:39, 2 February 2015
(UTC)

::Well then, given the thought experiment setting, why does just this one
come to your mind, [...]? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 16:01, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

:::The section please introduce yourself is a forum for discussion not related
to building an encylopedia. It's social in nature with some ambiguous goals. I
think frankly it is an attempt to set up her own quasi GGTF since her
compatriots were banned. [...] 16:07, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

::::Thanks, and as for compatriots, next step in the thought experiment, [...],
is precisely to now address that other, disagreeable, space and "phrase the
implicit rules that keep me off that page", any ideas as to how compatriotism
might express itself over there? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 08:40, 5 February
2015 (UTC)

---

any thoughts are welcome

best,
Claudia
koltzenburg@w4w.net
GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523

---------- Original Message -----------
From:Sydney Poore <sydney.poore@gmail.com>
To:Dariusz Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl>, Research into Wikimedia content
and communities <wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 10:49:05 -0500
Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers

> Hello Dariusz and everyone else,
>
> I'm interested in sharing ideas about the best way
> to discuss the gender gap in the wikimedia movement.
>
> While more information is always useful and at
> times necessary in order to measure change
> properly, if the previous data seems to still
> match the day to day observations pretty well then
> discounting the previous data as wrong just
> because it is outdated doesn't seem sensible.
>
> Since I've had the opportunity to observe the
> gender of wikimedia affiliated groups (both
> official and informal) from around the world, I
> can say with confidence  that the wikimedia
> movement is still dominated by males. Both on and
> off line, except for diversity related events, I'm
> often the only women participating in discussions
> and rarely does the ratio exceed 3 in 10.
>
> To have my observation better documented would be
> great :-) I hope that more wikimedia organizations
> document the gender mix of content creators who
> are affiliated with their organization so that
> better research can be done.
>
> I encourage everyone to look at the up coming WMF
> Inspire Gender Gap grant campaign and see if they
> can find an opportunity to work on better data
> collection during this high profile campaign.
>
>
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Inspire_Grants_%E2%80%93
_Gender_gap_campaign
>
> Sydney
>
> Sydney Poore
> User:FloNight
> Wikipedian in Residence
> at Cochrane Collaboration
>
> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Dariusz
> Jemielniak <darekj@alk.edu.pl> wrote:
>
> > 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.
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
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >
> >> > > _______________________________________________
> >> > > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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