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thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you that a lot of data we have is outdated, and that there are way too many generalizations about Wikipedia relying only on en-wiki.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