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.pdf
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
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 -------
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
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#pon... .
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
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 -------
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
hi dariusz,
the current methods are far from perfect.
in your opinion, in which respect do they need to be improved?
has anyone published on that, or are there any "non-published" links available?
best, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 - mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard
---------- 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.
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
------- End of Original Message -------
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 -------
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
Note that looking at article-gender and not editor-gender gives 15.6% female figure [1], which is similar to the ~16% other in the literature. If article-gender is a proxy for editor-gender, that is useful because it is easier to calculate article-gender.
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03086v1.pdf
Make a great day, Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfaker@gmail.com wrote:
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
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wikipedia Signpost had a discussion of this question, including data on English Wikipedians' gender by edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-02-14/News_a...
Their graph shows the male:female ratio: [image: A graph of decreasing bars from females occupying 15% initially to less than 5% on a logarithmic scale.]
But their plot omits editors who do not disclose their gender. I plotted these data: [image: Inline image 2] Regards, Michael
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Maximilian Klein isalix@gmail.com wrote:
Note that looking at article-gender and not editor-gender gives 15.6% female figure [1], which is similar to the ~16% other in the literature. If article-gender is a proxy for editor-gender, that is useful because it is easier to calculate article-gender.
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03086v1.pdf
Make a great day, Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Halfaker aaron.halfaker@gmail.com wrote:
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
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
I forgot that this is a text-based listserv. Here are links to the images I referred to. My apologies. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/48/English_Wikipedians%27_s... http://i.imgur.com/PXSBFa8.png
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:31 PM, Michael Restivo marestivo@gmail.com wrote:
Wikipedia Signpost had a discussion of this question, including data on English Wikipedians' gender by edits: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2011-02-14/News_a...
Their graph shows the male:female ratio: [image: A graph of decreasing bars from females occupying 15% initially to less than 5% on a logarithmic scale.]
But their plot omits editors who do not disclose their gender. I plotted these data: [image: Inline image 2] Regards, Michael
On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 1:09 PM, Maximilian Klein isalix@gmail.com wrote:
Note that looking at article-gender and not editor-gender gives 15.6% female figure [1], which is similar to the ~16% other in the literature. If article-gender is a proxy for editor-gender, that is useful because it is easier to calculate article-gender.
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03086v1.pdf
Make a great day, Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Halfaker <aaron.halfaker@gmail.com
wrote:
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
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
... so what if IRL many more female* editors start articles on trans*, inter*, non-genderidentified* and male* people than male* editors start articles on female*, trans*, inter* and non-genderidentified* people?
best, Claudia
---------- Original Message ----------- From:Maximilian Klein isalix@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 10:09:38 -0800 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Note that looking at article-gender and not editor- gender gives 15.6% female figure [1], which is similar to the ~16% other in the literature. If article-gender is a proxy for editor-gender, that is useful because it is easier to calculate article-gender.
[1] http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.03086v1.pdf
Make a great day, Max Klein ‽ http://notconfusing.com/
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:44 AM, Aaron Halfaker
wrote:
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
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
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
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_Gend...
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
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 -------
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 *SOCIO*technical 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.
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
Hi Bryce, interesting thoughts,
can you quickly explain to me what you mean by "forms of information"?
best, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
---------- Original Message ----------- From:Bryce Peake brycepeake@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:33:38 -0800 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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 *SOCIO*technical 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.
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
------- End of Original Message -------
blah - English. I meant diverse sources of information. Sorry all.
On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 9:39 AM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi Bryce, interesting thoughts,
can you quickly explain to me what you mean by "forms of information"?
best, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523
---------- Original Message ----------- From:Bryce Peake brycepeake@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Mon, 16 Feb 2015 09:33:38 -0800 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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 *SOCIO*technical 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.
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
------- End of Original Message -------
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
I agree the issues are not necessarily about male-female interactions. It may be about bully-victim interactions. I often suspect we are seeing an online form of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
playing out, where anyone can choose to be the prison guard enforcing the rules (of which we have plenty) taking advantage of the lack of real-world accountability (thanks to pseudonymity).
However, in terms of any kind of metric to measure progress, I think measuring Male/Female/DontKnow is a lot more viable than trying to count the number of bullies and victims (or powerful vs less powerful).
I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive to women, I rather suspect we make it a more attractive place for everyone.
Kerry
(disclaimer: research-wise, in this thread, I am speaking from a margin position in a role maybe similar to the one Shakespeare potrays his fools in, because it is not my field and I only have a rather vague idea of how people actually undertake such studies)
re
I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive to women, I rather suspect we make it a more attractive place for everyone.
what about yet another reversal game and see what happens:
this would be Kerry's statement from another perspective: "I think if we can make Wikipedia less attractive to men, I rather suspect we make it a more attractive place for everyone."
what kind of reseach design would be needed for this?
best, Claudia
---------- Original Message ----------- From:"Kerry Raymond" kerry.raymond@gmail.com To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:59:35 +1000 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
I agree the issues are not necessarily about male- female interactions. It may be about bully-victim interactions. I often suspect we are seeing an online form of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
playing out, where anyone can choose to be the prison guard enforcing the rules (of which we have plenty) taking advantage of the lack of real-world accountability (thanks to pseudonymity).
However, in terms of any kind of metric to measure progress, I think measuring Male/Female/DontKnow is a lot more viable than trying to count the number of bullies and victims (or powerful vs less powerful).
I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive to women, I rather suspect we make it a more attractive place for everyone.
Kerry
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki- research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
This might appear to some to be getting a little off topic for this list, but if you are beginning to think that of this thread I would plead for a little indulgence, and for people to approach this thread from the angle of how can we form research projects around this. Like many people I regard the dark side of the community as a legitimate topic for research and I would point out that the foundation is offering grant funds for projects targeted at the gender gap.
My reversal of Kerry's statement would be more like:
"I think if we can make Wikipedia less attractive to bullies, I rather suspect we make it a more attractive place for everyone else."
Since we don't know how to do this (yes there are some easy part solutions out there, but no magic bullets, certainly none that wouldn't have troubling side effects) there is an opportunity for researchers to make some innovative proposals.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
On 17 Feb 2015, at 08:20, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
(disclaimer: research-wise, in this thread, I am speaking from a margin position in a role maybe similar to the one Shakespeare potrays his fools in, because it is not my field and I only have a rather vague idea of how people actually undertake such studies)
re
I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive to women, I rather suspect we make it a more attractive place for everyone.
what about yet another reversal game and see what happens:
this would be Kerry's statement from another perspective: "I think if we can make Wikipedia less attractive to men, I rather suspect we make it a more attractive place for everyone."
what kind of reseach design would be needed for this?
best, Claudia
---------- Original Message ----------- From:"Kerry Raymond" kerry.raymond@gmail.com To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:59:35 +1000 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
I agree the issues are not necessarily about male- female interactions. It may be about bully-victim interactions. I often suspect we are seeing an online form of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
playing out, where anyone can choose to be the prison guard enforcing the rules (of which we have plenty) taking advantage of the lack of real-world accountability (thanks to pseudonymity).
However, in terms of any kind of metric to measure progress, I think measuring Male/Female/DontKnow is a lot more viable than trying to count the number of bullies and victims (or powerful vs less powerful).
I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive to women, I rather suspect we make it a more attractive place for everyone.
Kerry
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
hm,
a. > the dark side
... might be where most bright light bulbs are producing the nicest shades of shadow ;-)
b. > how can we form research projects around this
maybe by looking at how power is being upheld by those in power instead of looking at what those should do or have done that have less of it (or seem to have); only then look at what could be done to create other hegemonies (maybe take what Chantal Mouffe is saying re antagonist agonism, in: Agonistics. Thinking the World Politically, 2013)
best, Claudia
---------- Original Message ----------- From:WereSpielChequers werespielchequers@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:29:55 +0000 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
This might appear to some to be getting a little off topic for this list, but if you are beginning to think that of this thread I would plead for a little indulgence, and for people to approach this thread from the angle of how can we form research projects around this. Like many people I regard the dark side of the community as a legitimate topic for research and I would point out that the foundation is offering grant funds for projects targeted at the gender gap.
My reversal of Kerry's statement would be more like:
"I think if we can make Wikipedia less attractive to bullies, I rather suspect we make it a more attractive place for everyone else."
Since we don't know how to do this (yes there are some easy part solutions out there, but no magic bullets, certainly none that wouldn't have troubling side effects) there is an opportunity for researchers to make some innovative proposals.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
On 17 Feb 2015, at 08:20, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
(disclaimer: research-wise, in this thread, I am speaking from a margin position in a role maybe similar to the one Shakespeare potrays his fools
in,
because it is not my field and I only have a rather vague idea of how
people
actually undertake such studies)
re
I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive to women, I rather suspect we make it a more attractive place for everyone.
what about yet another reversal game and see what happens:
this would be Kerry's statement from another perspective: "I think if we can make Wikipedia less attractive to men, I rather suspect we make it a more attractive place for everyone."
what kind of reseach design would be needed for this?
best, Claudia
---------- Original Message ----------- From:"Kerry Raymond" kerry.raymond@gmail.com To:"'Research into Wikimedia content and communities'" <wiki-
research-
l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:59:35 +1000 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] types of research Re: a cautious note on genderstats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
I agree the issues are not necessarily about male- female interactions. It may be about bully-victim interactions. I often suspect we are seeing an online form of
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
playing out, where anyone can choose to be the prison guard enforcing the rules (of which we have plenty) taking advantage of the lack of real-world accountability (thanks to pseudonymity).
However, in terms of any kind of metric to measure progress, I think measuring Male/Female/DontKnow is a lot more viable than trying to count the number of bullies and victims (or powerful vs less powerful).
I think if we can make Wikipedia more attractive to women, I rather suspect we make it a more attractive place for everyone.
Kerry
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 -------
Hi GerardM,
why not have a guess ;-)
Claudia ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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
------- End of Original Message -------
Hoi, Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk about diversity, it is because it was recognised as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very much improved. Consequently it is very much beside the point. Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2015 at 07:48, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi GerardM,
why not have a guess ;-)
Claudia ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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
------- End of Original Message -------
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
ah, thanks, GerardM,
so -- if I read your reaction correctly -- the underlying hypothesis on which it is based says that much has changed (or may have) since those old days? What information do you base this hypothesis on?
my main point, anyway, is to cast a doubt as to the methods used in such statistical work and interpretation of the outcome, any comments on that?
see also "Clearly, we need to measure some things, but we also need to be highly skeptical of what we choose to measure, how we do so, and what we do with the resulting data." Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (17 December 2014), Measure, manage, manipulate, http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/measure-manage-manipulate.html
best, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:05:24 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Hoi, Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk about diversity, it is because it was recognised as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very much improved. Consequently it is very much beside the point. Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2015 at 07:48, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi GerardM,
why not have a guess ;-)
Claudia ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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
------- End of Original Message -------
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
Hoi, Where you say that we need to be careful with such things, the phenomenon has been recognised. It is receiving attention and there have been plenty signals that it has been taken up all over the world. It deserves continued attention but we need to learn about this process. Quoting from research that is old does not serve a purpose.
Arguably the coverage of the politics of Djibouti is not as good as the politics of Chicago.That is easy to recognise and it is relatively easy to understand how and if this issue is appreciated as such. One easy way to recognise that it is not really "hot" is that there is no research about it. Thanks, GerardM
PS currently there are at least 388991 articles about women [1]\
1 http://tools.wmflabs.org/autolist/autolist1.html?q=claim%5B31%3A5%5D%20and%2...
On 15 February 2015 at 09:34, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
ah, thanks, GerardM,
so -- if I read your reaction correctly -- the underlying hypothesis on which it is based says that much has changed (or may have) since those old days? What information do you base this hypothesis on?
my main point, anyway, is to cast a doubt as to the methods used in such statistical work and interpretation of the outcome, any comments on that?
see also "Clearly, we need to measure some things, but we also need to be highly skeptical of what we choose to measure, how we do so, and what we do with the resulting data." Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (17 December 2014), Measure, manage, manipulate, http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/measure-manage-manipulate.html
best, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:05:24 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Hoi, Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk about diversity, it is because it was recognised as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very much improved. Consequently it is very much beside the point. Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2015 at 07:48, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi GerardM,
why not have a guess ;-)
Claudia ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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
------- End of Original Message -------
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
Hi GerardM,
two questions come to mind re your mail:
is your reply (esp. in the second part) a statement about something like "enoughness"?
what does any number of a certain kind of articles in any version have to do with the issue at hand?
and here's two hypotheses:
1. the relevance of research cannot always be judged by its year of publication alone
2. hotness of a topic is most likely nothing much more than a qualifier relative to social and financial factors from which follows that scientific inquiry is no "neutral" business but dependent on categories like "effect of gender relations in a given field of inquiry including the motivations underlying any decisions on the part of its sponsors"
best, Claudia
---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:37:21 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Hoi, Where you say that we need to be careful with such things, the phenomenon has been recognised. It is receiving attention and there have been plenty signals that it has been taken up all over the world. It deserves continued attention but we need to learn about this process. Quoting from research that is old does not serve a purpose.
Arguably the coverage of the politics of Djibouti is not as good as the politics of Chicago.That is easy to recognise and it is relatively easy to understand how and if this issue is appreciated as such. One easy way to recognise that it is not really "hot" is that there is no research about it. Thanks, GerardM
PS currently there are at least 388991 articles about women [1]\
q=claim%5B31%3A5%5D%20and%20claim%5B21%3A6581072%5D
On 15 February 2015 at 09:34, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
ah, thanks, GerardM,
so -- if I read your reaction correctly -- the underlying hypothesis on which it is based says that much has changed (or may have) since those old
days?
What information do you base this hypothesis on?
my main point, anyway, is to cast a doubt as to the methods used in
such
statistical work and interpretation of the outcome, any comments on
that?
see also "Clearly, we need to measure some things, but we also need to
be
highly skeptical of what we choose to measure, how we do so, and what
we
do with the resulting data." Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (17 December 2014), Measure, manage, manipulate, http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/measure-manage-
manipulate.html
best, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:05:24 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Hoi, Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk about diversity, it is because it was recognised as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very much improved. Consequently it is very much beside the point. Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2015 at 07:48, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi GerardM,
why not have a guess ;-)
Claudia ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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
------- End of Original Message -------
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
------- End of Original Message -------
Hoi, It is enough when nothing new is added to the discussion. So I am looking for new data that points in a change in diversity ie the ratio between male and female contributors.The number of items in Wikidata about males and females is one indicator that may change over time. It can be seen as an indicator how our projects become more or less woman friendly. NB I published the number of items about men or women quite regularly and THAT makes mentioning it more or less relevant.
While I agree that some studies maintain there relevance. They only reflect a point in time. What I care for is to learn how things change. To do that it is relevant to know HOW research came to a result so that the same routines can be run again. Arguably most research even published research is as good as the reputation of the person who published it. I care about numbers and research that is operational; that can be used in a practical way. Consequently the number of "human" that do not have a gender is relevant over time because it indicates how we are doing with such relevant information.
Hotness is fine. When numbers are produced and the numbers indicate a specific point, it makes little difference when the consequences are not accepted. It is often said that the diversity that exists between the Anglophile world and the rest of the world is way too big. Given the number of people involved it seems obvious that we are not gaining any ground towards more balanced information in ALL of our projects. Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2015 at 12:03, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi GerardM,
two questions come to mind re your mail:
is your reply (esp. in the second part) a statement about something like "enoughness"?
what does any number of a certain kind of articles in any version have to do with the issue at hand?
and here's two hypotheses:
- the relevance of research cannot always be judged by its year of
publication alone
- hotness of a topic is most likely nothing much more than a qualifier
relative to social and financial factors from which follows that scientific inquiry is no "neutral" business but dependent on categories like "effect of gender relations in a given field of inquiry including the motivations underlying any decisions on the part of its sponsors"
best, Claudia
---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 11:37:21 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Hoi, Where you say that we need to be careful with such things, the phenomenon has been recognised. It is receiving attention and there have been plenty signals that it has been taken up all over the world. It deserves continued attention but we need to learn about this process. Quoting from research that is old does not serve a purpose.
Arguably the coverage of the politics of Djibouti is not as good as the politics of Chicago.That is easy to recognise and it is relatively easy to understand how and if this issue is appreciated as such. One easy way to recognise that it is not really "hot" is that there is no research about it. Thanks, GerardM
PS currently there are at least 388991 articles about women [1]\
q=claim%5B31%3A5%5D%20and%20claim%5B21%3A6581072%5D
On 15 February 2015 at 09:34, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
ah, thanks, GerardM,
so -- if I read your reaction correctly -- the underlying hypothesis on which it is based says that much has changed (or may have) since those old
days?
What information do you base this hypothesis on?
my main point, anyway, is to cast a doubt as to the methods used in
such
statistical work and interpretation of the outcome, any comments on
that?
see also "Clearly, we need to measure some things, but we also need to
be
highly skeptical of what we choose to measure, how we do so, and what
we
do with the resulting data." Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (17 December 2014), Measure, manage, manipulate, http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/measure-manage-
manipulate.html
best, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:05:24 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Hoi, Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk about diversity, it is because it was recognised as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very much improved. Consequently it is very much beside the point. Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2015 at 07:48, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi GerardM,
why not have a guess ;-)
Claudia ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-
research-
l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:
Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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 > >
------- End of Original Message -------
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
------- End of Original Message -------
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
In 2011 the project was only ten years old, four more years is time for big changes to have occurred. Changes we know something about include the repercussions of the transition from manual vandal fighting to predominately automated vandalism rejection. This may have had more subtle implications than the obvious one of the reduction in raw edit count. In 2011 we had an admin cadre still dominated by admins appointed in the era when "good vandal fighter" was sufficient qualification to pass RFA. Four years on the admin corps has changed by not changing. Roughly a fifth of our remaining admins have been appointed in the last four years, but through a process with a very different de facto criteria than before, and of course the vast majority of our admins are now four years older than in 2011. If the theory is true that vandal fighting was very attractive to teenage boys, then in 2011 our youngest admins might still not have been legally adult. Nowadays I doubt if we have many admins who are undergraduates.
Sometimes the dialogue within the movement can look like a bunch of over confident thirty something's talking at a bunch of grey beards who they think are adolescents and who think they are being hectored by young pups straight out of college. An editor survey would test theories such as the greying of the pedia, and as with any occasion when one has ones first look in the mirror after a long gap, it would tell us much about ourselves.
Another reason for doing another editor survey, and indeed a former editor's survey, is that some of us have been trying to fix the Gendergap for years, it would be nice to see if our efforts have had any impact. It could even test the theory that the community is more abrasive towards women. We know that we are less successful at recruiting female editors than male ones, I'm not sure if we have tested whether we are more successful at retaining established male editors than female ones, and if so whether we are losing women because they are lured away or driven away.
Regards
Jonathan Cardy
On 15 Feb 2015, at 08:34, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
ah, thanks, GerardM,
so -- if I read your reaction correctly -- the underlying hypothesis on which it is based says that much has changed (or may have) since those old days? What information do you base this hypothesis on?
my main point, anyway, is to cast a doubt as to the methods used in such statistical work and interpretation of the outcome, any comments on that?
see also "Clearly, we need to measure some things, but we also need to be highly skeptical of what we choose to measure, how we do so, and what we do with the resulting data." Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (17 December 2014), Measure, manage, manipulate, http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/measure-manage-manipulate.html
best, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sun, 15 Feb 2015 08:05:24 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Hoi, Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk about diversity, it is because it was recognised as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very much improved. Consequently it is very much beside the point. Thanks, GerardM
On 15 February 2015 at 07:48, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi GerardM,
why not have a guess ;-)
Claudia ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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
------- End of Original Message -------
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
No data point is beside the point. It simply awaits more data points to be beside it, so we can plot the trend.
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.
I note that a new strategic planning exercise is taking place. It would be a good time to encourage the thinking that strategic plans need metrics and a framework in which selected proposals can be tested (e.g. A/B testing) to see their impact on metrics. For example, I've suggested that we should make "undo" a little bit harder by additionally requiring a selection of "which policy" justifies it and a prominent warning if the user is a newbie (to try to get some respect paid to WP:NOBITE). This has two purposes, prevents "I don't like it" undo, provides clearer feedback to the person's whose edit is undone (and to those of us looking on), provides better metrics about the impact of policies and the policing of those policies, etc. Imagine if we were also collecting a few more demographics about users. We'd then know a whole lot more about which categories of contributors were being reverted by which category of contributors under which policies. If we see concerning patterns emerging, then we have the evidence to push for changes in the policy or its policing or .
Kerry
_____
From: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Gerard Meijssen Sent: Sunday, 15 February 2015 5:05 PM To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
Hoi,
Obviously I know. My point is that when we talk about diversity, it is because it was recognised as a problem ... When papers of 2011 are quoted in 2015 when diversity is mentioned, it does not give us a clue if the problem is as bad, worse or very much improved. Consequently it is very much beside the point.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 15 February 2015 at 07:48, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Hi GerardM,
why not have a guess ;-)
Claudia ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l@lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
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
------- 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@lists.wikimedia.org
