Nope - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framing_%28social_sciences%29 . The collection of contexts someone approaches a situation with.
I totally agree that forcing identification is verboten; this wasn't an ivory tower schpiel. It was the response of a long-term (10 years) Wikipedian, who also happens to be a researcher into how our projects work, to the argument that if people avoid identifying themselves as a member of a particular demography, everything will just be fine.
On 7 March 2015 at 23:02, Sam Katz smkatz@gmail.com wrote:
It is our job to improve wikipedia.
I hope we do that.
Frames I assume you mean linguistic frames.
I think in order to record or track gender pronouns on wikipedia you have to have a compelling reason to do it, not a compelling reason not to. There is no reason to identify users -- we agree on that that's why we allow anonymous submissions. I think any personal identifier is a really bad idea -- ask the EFF if you don't believe me.
I've made my case. It should in theory not be pushed aside by some academic ivory tower spiel. But I'll refer my case somewhere else... I think for the trans community this is pretty important, as well as for people posting from other countries where 'bias' means death.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 7:45 PM, Oliver Keyes okeyes@wikimedia.org wrote:
Sam,
So, gender display online != gender display offline, but knowing gender online == knowing gender offline? That's not how frames work.
Does knowing someone's gender increase bias? Probably. Because it's a biased and gendered environment we've found ourselves with. Does not knowing someone's gender remove bias? Not in the slightest - because area effect microaggressions are a thing, and a community built by one demographic has processes and standards optimised /for/ that demographic and /away/ from a lot of others.
This idea - that women were the first to adopt pen names and so it's possible to avoid microaggressions and bias if you simply stay anonymous - is discriminatory in and of itself (if we have an environment where women have to hide who they are to contribute, the problem is the environment. Do not put the burden and responsibility of avoiding the discrimination on the people suffering from it). Moreover, people won't actually avoid the gender bias, just the extremes of it, because structures still exert their own bias.
And, yes, structures /might/ not impose gender bias. But our structures /do/, implicitly and explicitly, in a million ways. When we have male pronouns as the default, when we have a system that is totally ignorant of the differences in sociological conditioning between different demographics (we have adversarial dispute resolution procedures and a clinical inability to control aggressive users. How do you think that meshes with Western, at least, gender essentialism?), we have a structure imposing gender bias.
And that's the structure that we have, and arguing that there might be a universe in which this doesn't happen is not a useful argument to make. It's akin to dealing with an inferno in an apartment building by showing up and pointing out that, /strictly speaking/, buildings don't /have/ to be on fire. It's, you know, true, and that's nice, but it's not particularly applicable when our building quite clearly /is/ on fire.
So let's get back to brainstorming on how we improve the data we have in this field, and our understanding of the dynamics and biases and makeup of the community, and away from "there could be a community somewhere where these problems are moot", please.
On 7 March 2015 at 16:05, Sam Katz smkatz@gmail.com wrote:
people's gender. does knowing someone's gender increase bias? My guess based on the real life experiments is yes.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:23 PM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
when what is known? gender discrimination?
---------- Original Message ----------- From:Sam Katz smkatz@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:28:55 -0600 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
does a wiki have single authorship (like the original britannica) or multiple authorship? does it value anonymity? is gender discrimination more likely when it is known?
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
> I would prefer we not track gender at all.
why not for a wiki like Wikipedia?
and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a
ton harder" to deal
with?
thanks, Claudia
---------- Original Message ----------- From:Sam Katz smkatz@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-
l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:22 -0600 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> It seems to me you are extrapolating from > insufficient data. identity and presentation are > not the same thing, but I guess the question in > this context is "what is presentation in an online > setting?" "how is gender shown in an online setting?" > > That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have > "in a wiki like wikipedia" and it's a ton harder. > > I would prefer we not track gender at all. > > --Sam > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM, > koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote: > > yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting > > > > in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably
more
> > important than how the attacked user might identify
(or not)
> > > > and again, this might be one of the reasons why people > > identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining
surveys
> > and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they
"are" -
> > just like many others who do not identify as (e.g., > > heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less
safe if
> > they say anything about their gender/s or sexual > > identity/identities... how come? > > > > sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in
hegemonic
> > positions would be willing to switch perspectives for a > > minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than
20%" -
> > posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done
away with,
> > I guess > > > > as for another attempt at switching one's
perspective, who
> > are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or fluid > > identities, maybe? > > > > best, Claudia > > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > > From:Sam Katz smkatz@gmail.com > > To:kerry.raymond@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia
content
> > and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600 > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender > > stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > > > >> To those following: > >> I think this is a valid question I am raising. The > >> question of whether written communication has a > >> different way of relating than oral, in the > >> context of a wiki, which by definition is > >> collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous > >> editing, is a valid question. > >> > >> Anonymity and pen names were first used often > >> times by women. > >> > >> I will also note that in terms of interface biases, > >> Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons) > >> that use photos of their users as adornments, to > >> show what users have posted do worse than > >> wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and > >> courage ("be bold in editing") among their users. > >> > >> Clarifying what the question is in this thread is > >> a good first step towards answering it. If I was > >> confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is > >> an important discussion to have. > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond > >> kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote: > >> > Do you say that as a man or as a woman? > >> > > >> > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely
in real
> > life and online. > >> > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters
addressed
> > to "Dr Sir" etc. > >> > > >> > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real
life,
> > it has got somewhat > >> > better over the years. But getting involved in
Wikipedia
> > and its discussions > >> > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we
really
> > have a gender gap?" > >> > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?" > >> > > >> > Kerry > >> > > >> > -----Original Message----- > >> > From: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org > >> >
[mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
> > Behalf Of Sam Katz > >> > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM > >> > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > >> > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
gender
> > stats Re: Fwd: > >> > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > >> > > >> > hey, > >> > > >> > I just want to note that I am not convinced that
gender
> > expression > >> > online or indeed expression in general is the same
as it
> > is in real > >> > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what you are > > trying to > >> > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that > > indeed it may not > >> > have a gender bias directly if the structure does not > > impose it. > >> > > >> > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM, koltzenburg@w4w.net > > wrote: > >> >> Hi Frances, > >> >> > >> >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language
where
> >> >> personal nouns are gendered will always display the > >> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just tested it > > from a > >> >> new dummy account. > >> >> > >> >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and
especially so
> >> >> because community majority has not seen to
changing that
> >> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it seems. > >> >> > >> >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my
cautious note
> >> >> on gender stats > >> >> > >> >> best, > >> >> Claudia > >> >> ---------- Original Message ----------- > >> >> From:Frances Hocutt fhocutt@wikimedia.org > >> >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities > >> >> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800 > >> >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
gender
> >> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > >> >> > >> >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson > >> >>> mjn@anadrome.org wrote: > >> >>> > >> >>> > > >> >>> > Frances Hocutt fhocutt@wikimedia.org writes: > >> >>> > > >> >>> > > One change that could address the latter
incentive is
> >> >> to change the > >> >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine
grammatical
> >> >> gender is not the > >> >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly
assigned,
> >> >> and then some men > >> >>> > as > >> >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive
to set
> >> >> their gender > >> >>> > preferences. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > That's how it currently works, according to
the manual,
> >> >> with the default > >> >>> > gender set to 'unknown': > >> >>> > > >
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
> >> >>> > > >> >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or
what's in
> >> >> effect on > >> >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though. > >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My > >> >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm wrong-- > >> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where > >> >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display > >> >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of > >> >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't > >> >>> need to change his gender in preferences in order > >> >>> to be described accurately where a female user > >> >>> would need to set her gender in order to be > >> >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different > >> >>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with > >> >>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user. > >> >>> > >> >>> -Frances > >> >> ------- 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
> >> > > >> > > >> > _______________________________________________ > >> > 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
> > _______________________________________________ > 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
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
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
-- Oliver Keyes Research Analyst Wikimedia Foundation
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