Hi Claudial,
I responded to your questions in the text - hope it's readable.
Jane
____WereSpielChequers wrote:
"the community is more abrasive towards women"
I think he is simply referring to earlier discussions where the conclusion was "the community can be perceived to be abrasive" and this conclusion, in yet other discussions led to this conclusion, which should be rephrased as "the community is more often perceived as abrasive by women than by men"
____Kerry wrote:
"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."
___Claudia (responding to Kerry):
I think one has to question the point of not putting in place a means of
measuring the progress...
and also ask why, if the issue is a high priority (allegedly, one might add, in
speeches at meetings, in interviews with the press...) this organisation does
not fund any top level research... - or does it?
I think here you are forgetting about the "holy shit graph" which shows a reduction in the number of active editors over time. This is much more of a direct threat to the Wikiverse than the gendergap, which, as has been stated before, is only one of many serious gaps in knowledge coverage. Oddly, I think it is one of the easiest of all "participatory gaps" to measure, but we seem to constantly get stranded in objections to ways that previous editor surveys have been held, leading to the strange situation of never actually being able to run even one editor survey twice. Since we have not yet been able to establish any trend at all, we are only comparing apples to oranges.
____Aaron wrote:
"higher quality survey data"
__Claudia (responding to Aaron): ...how does one recognize low quality..?
Hmm. I just looked and I couldn't find the criticism of the various editor surveys. Is this stashed somewhere on meta? Or do we need to sift through reams of emails until we find all the various objections? Objections galore, as I recall.
___Claudia: which "related participation gaps" do you have in mind here?
Off the top of my head, some of these would be
1) lack of geographical editor coverage such as active editors in rural areas or even in whole states such as Wyoming or South Dakota and the whole "Global South participation problem" (the Global South participation problem is even helped along inadvertently by the new read-only "Wikipedia-zero" effect);
2) lack of topical expertise on subjects that technically don't lend themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as auditory fields (musical production) or visual fields (how to paint, how to make movies, how to choreograph motion)
3) lack of topical expertise on subjects that legally don't lend themselves well to the Wikiverse, such as articles about artworks under copyright that cannot be illustrated in an article;
4) lack of topical editor coverage on subjects previously shut out - there is still unwillingness by a whole group to re-enter the Wikiverse after being banned (earlier shut-outs such as blocking whole institution-wide ip ranges for vandalism or whole areas of expertise such as groups of writers for their COI editing, carry with them a history of anti-Wikipedia sentiment that lasts a long time in various enclaves)
___Claudia:
and, again, in which language version(s)?
That's easy - the languages that we can technically support but don't yet have Wikipedias for and the languages for which we don't even have the fonts to display them.
best,
Claudia