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?

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

> Hoi, > What year are we living ? > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, <koltzenburg(a)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

>> >> author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An

>> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15 >> >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes: >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011, 91 percent

>> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011] This

>> 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

>> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more

>> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations

>> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011)

>> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender in

>> 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

>> 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

>> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not

>> quote from them persistently, too... >> >> any rebuttals from stats experts here? >> >> best, >> Claudia >> koltzenburg(a)w4w.net >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 >> >> ---------- Original Message ----------- >> From:Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- >> l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; >> 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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; >> > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; >> > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results >> > (translated to English) are here: >> >>

>> 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 >> > &lt;yana(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: >> > >> > > Hi all, >> > > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers? >> > > >> > > Thanks, >> > > Yana >> > > >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Gendergap mailing list >> > > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > > To manage your subscription preferences, including

>> please >> > > visit: >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap >> > > >> ------- End of Original Message ------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >

the current methods are far from perfect.

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, &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; wrote: > Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer, > > hi all, > can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in

> studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for example,

> 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

> 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

> readers" question that this thread started with, > > best, > Claudia > koltzenburg(a)w4w.net > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > From:Jeremy Foote &lt;jdfoote1(a)gmail.com&gt; > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- > l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > 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 > &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > Hoi, > > > What year are we living ? > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; wrote: > > > > > >> my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary

> > >> 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

> of > > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011]

> figure > > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online

> > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073

> and > > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more > likely to > > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of

> of > > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al.

> may be > > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their

> a > > >> community perceived as male dominated." > > >> > > >> additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also

> > >> by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one

> above) > > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist

> > >> changes; > > >> > > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived

> > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most > rewarding, > > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and

> least > > >> quote from them persistently, too... > > >> > > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here? > > >> > > >> best, > > >> Claudia > > >> koltzenburg(a)w4w.net > > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 > > >> > > >> ---------- Original Message ----------- > > >> From:Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; > > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-

> > >> l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > > >> 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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; > > >> > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > > >> > > > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an > > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results > > >> > (translated to English) are here: > > >> > > >> >

> > >> 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 > > >> > &lt;yana(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hi all, > > >> > > > > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia

-- __________________________ 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

hi, On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; wrote: 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. 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 -- __________________________ 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(a)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 &lt;aaron.halfaker(a)gmail.com > 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 &lt;darekj(a)alk.edu.pl&gt; > wrote: > >> hi, >> >> >> On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 3:43 PM, &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; 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(a)w4w.net >>> Meine GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 >>> - mehr dazu: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Privacy_Guard >>> >>> ---------- Original Message ----------- >>> From:Dariusz Jemielniak &lt;darekj(a)alk.edu.pl&gt; >>> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- >>> l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; >>> 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, >>> > &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; 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(a)w4w.net >>> > > >>> > > ---------- Original Message ----------- >>> > > From:Jeremy Foote &lt;jdfoote1(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- >>> > > l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; >>> > > 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 >>> > > &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com >>> > > >>>> > > > >>> > > > > Hoi, >>> > > > > What year are we living ? >>> > > > > Thanks, >>> > > > > GerardM >>> > > > > >>> > > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; 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(a)w4w.net >>> > > > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> ---------- Original Message ----------- >>> > > > >> From:Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> > > > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki- >>> research- >>> > > > >> l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; >>> > > > >> 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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; >>> > > > >> > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > 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 >>> > > > >> > &lt;yana(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: >>> > > > >> > >>> > > > >> > > Hi all, >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia >>> readers? >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > Thanks, >>> > > > >> > > Yana >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > >>> > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > > >> > > Gendergap mailing list >>> > > > >> > > Gendergap(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> > > > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> > > > >> >>> > > > >> >>> > > > > >>> > > > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> > > > > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >>> > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > ------- End of Original Message ------- >>> > > >>> > > _______________________________________________ >>> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list >>> > > Wiki-research-l(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)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(a)w4w.net ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Jeremy Foote &lt;jdfoote1(a)gmail.com&gt; To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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 id=10.1371/journal.pone.0065782#pone-0065782-t002 . &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com paradigm), considerations, ethnography of figure and likely to of may be in a described above) rewarding, least https://nl.wikimedia.org/wiki/Bestand:Motivaction_report_translation_v02.pd unsubscribing, ------- End of Original Message ------- _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

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.

Sydney Sydney Poore User:FloNight Wikipedian in Residence at Cochrane Collaboration On Mon, Feb 16, 2015 at 8:58 AM, Dariusz Jemielniak &lt;darekj(a)alk.edu.pl&gt; 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

> paper (referred to by Jeremy), there needs to be more approaches to our > estimations of gender gap, and the current methods are far from

> 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, &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; wrote: > >> Hi Jeremy, thank you for this pointer, >> >> hi all, >> can anyone explain to me why data from 2008 are re-used in

>> studies of this kind? (instead of asking new questions, for example,

>> 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

>> version (community) the data were created in/from. >> my guess on this issue is that "results" re enWP may be quite

>> from >> results re, say, bgWP or hiWP, because genders relate to one another >> differently and collaborative writing on the web may have a

>> gendered status in different communities, etc. >> >> the same caveat would be due as to yesterday's "the gender of

>> readers" question that this thread started with, >> >> best, >> Claudia >> koltzenburg(a)w4w.net >> >> ---------- Original Message ----------- >> From:Jeremy Foote &lt;jdfoote1(a)gmail.com&gt; >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- >> l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; >> 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 >> &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com >> > > wrote: >> > >> > > Hoi, >> > > What year are we living ? >> > > Thanks, >> > > GerardM >> > > >> > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; 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

>> of >> > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of 2011]

>> figure >> > >> may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online

>> > >> advertised to 31,699 registered users and resulting on 5,073

>> and >> > >> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more >> likely to >> > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-

>> of >> > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al.

>> may be >> > >> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their

>> 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

>> above) >> > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist

>> > >> changes; >> > >> >> > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived

>> > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes most >> rewarding, >> > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and

>> least >> > >> quote from them persistently, too... >> > >> >> > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here? >> > >> >> > >> best, >> > >> Claudia >> > >> koltzenburg(a)w4w.net >> > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 >> > >> >> > >> ---------- Original Message ----------- >> > >> From:Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; >> > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-

>> > >> l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; >> > >> 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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; >> > >> > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; >> > >> > >> > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an >> > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results >> > >> > (translated to English) are here: >> > >> >> > >> >> >>

>> > >> 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 >> > >> > &lt;yana(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > > Hi all, >> > >> > > >> > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia

>> > >> > > >> > >> > > Thanks, >> > >> > > Yana >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > >> > > Gendergap mailing list >> > >> > > Gendergap(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> > >> >> > >> >> > > >> > > _______________________________________________ >> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list >> > > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >> > > >> > > >> ------- End of Original Message ------- >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wiki-research-l mailing list >> Wiki-research-l(a)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?

> 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-

> Motherboard: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/an-ethnography-of-

> The Wikipedian: > http://thewikipedian.net/2014/10/10/dariusz-jemielniak-common-

> > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >

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, &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; 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

> 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

> previous thought experiment (from a Miscellany_for_deletion discussion

> enWP) still lingering a bit, which started in this way: > > * meta: in-principle debates usually show how rules are made to work

> 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

> to is > actually a place you do not wish to be on because the climate among

> is > unbearable to you. Next step: Please phrase the implicit rules that

> off that page and make them explicit here. Let's see what everyone

> 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

> 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

> [...], > is precisely to now address that other, disagreeable, space and "phrase

> 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

> 2015 (UTC) > > --- > > any thoughts are welcome > > best, > Claudia > koltzenburg(a)w4w.net > GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > From:Sydney Poore &lt;sydney.poore(a)gmail.com&gt; > To:Dariusz Jemielniak &lt;darekj(a)alk.edu.pl&gt;pl>, Research into Wikimedia

> and communities &lt;wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > 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. > > > > >

> _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 &lt;darekj(a)alk.edu.pl&gt; wrote: > > > > > hi there, > > > > > > thanks for the quote :) I totally agree with you that a lot of

> > > have is outdated, and that there are way too many generalizations

> > > 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

> > > 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, &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; 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

> and > > >> also > > >> changing the framework in which the data were created) > > >> > > >> another issue seems to be that, while Wikipedia exists in a host

> > >> 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

> > >> 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(a)w4w.net > > >> > > >> ---------- Original Message ----------- > > >> From:Jeremy Foote &lt;jdfoote1(a)gmail.com&gt; > > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-

> > >> l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 22:12:41 -0600 > > >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:

> > >> [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 > > >> &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com > > >> > > wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > Hoi, > > >> > > What year are we living ? > > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > > GerardM > > >> > > > > >> > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt;

> > >> > > > > >> > >> 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?

> > >> ethnography > > >> > >> of Wikipedia, Stanford University Press, pp. 14-15 > > >> > >> > > >> > >> Dariusz Jemielniak writes: > > >> > >> "According to Wikipedia Editors Study, published in 2011,

> percent > > >> of > > >> > >> all Wikipedia editors are male ([reference to a study of

> 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

> > >> likely to > > >> > >> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self- > declarations > > >> of > > >> > >> gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et

> 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

> quoted > > >> above) > > >> > >> is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to

> any > > >> > >> changes; > > >> > >> > > >> > >> and, last but not least, one might argue that the group

> as > > >> > >> "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes

> > >> rewarding, > > >> > >> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible

> not > > >> least > > >> > >> quote from them persistently, too... > > >> > >> > > >> > >> any rebuttals from stats experts here? > > >> > >> > > >> > >> best, > > >> > >> Claudia > > >> > >> koltzenburg(a)w4w.net > > >> > >> My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 > > >> > >> > > >> > >> ---------- Original Message ----------- > > >> > >> From:Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; > > >> > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities

> research- > > >> > >> l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > > >> > >> Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 10:49:29 +0100 > > >> > >> Subject:[Wiki-research-l] Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia

> > >> > >> > > >> > >> > Forwarding here in case anyone has information > > >> > >> > that could benefit Yana > > >> > >> > ---------- Forwarded message ---------- > > >> > >> > From: Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; > > >> > >> > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an > > >> > >> > external party to conduct a survey and the results > > >> > >> > (translated to English) are here: > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > >> >

> > >> > >> 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 > > >> > >> > &lt;yana(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Hi all, > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia > readers? > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > Thanks, > > >> > >> > > Yana > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > >> > >> > > Gendergap mailing list > > >> > >> > > Gendergap(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > >> > >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > >> > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > >> > > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > >> > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> ------- End of Original Message ------- > > >> > > >> _______________________________________________ > > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list > > >> Wiki-research-l(a)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

> 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-

> 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > ------- End of Original Message ------- > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >

l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; 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 ------- End of Original Message ------- _______________________________________________ Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l

Hoi, What year are we living ? Thanks, GerardM On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; wrote: > my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary paradigm), > well... > > I'd suggest to take into account User:Pundit's thoughtful

> > author of: Jemielniak, Dariusz (2014), Common knowledge? An

> 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

> 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

> valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more likely

> respond than female editors. Similarly, a study of self-declarations of > gender showing only 16 percent are female editors (Lam et al. 2011)

> distorted, since more females may choose not to reveal their gender in

> 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

> 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

> and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible and not

> quote from them persistently, too... > > any rebuttals from stats experts here? > > best, > Claudia > koltzenburg(a)w4w.net > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > From:Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- > l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > 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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; > > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > > > > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an > > external party to conduct a survey and the results > > (translated to English) are here: >

> 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 > > &lt;yana(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia readers? > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Yana > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Gendergap mailing list > > > Gendergap(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > >

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, &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; wrote: > Hi GerardM, > > why not have a guess ;-) > > Claudia > ---------- Original Message ----------- > From:Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- > l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > 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, > > &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; wrote: > > > > > my2cents re figures on percentages (... in a gender binary

> > > 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

> > > 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

> and > > > valid responses [...] it is possible that male editors are more

> to > > > respond than female editors. Similarly, a study 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

> a > > > community perceived as male dominated." > > > > > > additionally, asserting status and flaunting seniority (also

> > > by Jemielniak at the end of the paragraph previous to the one

> above) > > > is generally perceived to be a commonly employed trick to resist

> > > changes; > > > > > > and, last but not least, one might argue that the group perceived

> > > "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(a)w4w.net > > > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 > > > > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > > > From:Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-

> > > l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > > > 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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > > > > > > > > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an > > > > external party to conduct a survey and the results > > > > (translated to English) are here: > > > >

> > > 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 > > > > &lt;yana(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia

> > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > Yana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > Gendergap mailing list > > > > > Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > To manage your subscription preferences, including

> > > please > > > > > visit: > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap > > > > > > > > ------- End of Original Message ------- > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > ------- End of Original Message ------- > > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >

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?

On 15 February 2015 at 09:34, &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; 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

> What information do you base this hypothesis on? > > my main point, anyway, is to cast a doubt as to the methods used in

> statistical work and interpretation of the outcome, any comments on

> > see also "Clearly, we need to measure some things, but we also need to

> highly skeptical of what we choose to measure, how we do so, and what

> do with the resulting data." Joseph M. Reagle Jr. (17 December 2014), > Measure, manage, manipulate, > http://reagle.org/joseph/pelican/social/measure-manage-

> > best, > Claudia > koltzenburg(a)w4w.net > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 > ---------- Original Message ----------- > From:Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-research- > l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > 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, > > &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; wrote: > > > > > Hi GerardM, > > > > > > why not have a guess ;-) > > > > > > Claudia > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > > > From:Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki-

> > > l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > > > Sent:Sat, 14 Feb 2015 18:42:08 +0100 > > > Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re:

> > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > > > > > > > Hoi, > > > > What year are we living ? > > > > Thanks, > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > On 14 February 2015 at 17:24, > > > > &lt;koltzenburg(a)w4w.net&gt; 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]

> > > figure > > > > > may not be accurate, since it is based on a voluntary online

> > > > > 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

> 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

> any > > > > > changes; > > > > > > > > > > and, last but not least, one might argue that the group

> as > > > > > "in power" might feel to find strongly unbalanced outcomes

> > > rewarding, > > > > > and hence might tend to publish them as widely as possible

> > > least > > > > > quote from them persistently, too... > > > > > > > > > > any rebuttals from stats experts here? > > > > > > > > > > best, > > > > > Claudia > > > > > koltzenburg(a)w4w.net > > > > > My GPG-Key-ID: DDD21523 > > > > > > > > > > ---------- Original Message ----------- > > > > > From:Jane Darnell &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > > > To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities <wiki- > research- > > > > > l(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > > > > > 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 &lt;jane023(a)gmail.com&gt; > > > > > > 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org&gt; > > > > > > > > > > > > In 2013 the Dutch Wikimedia chapter hired an > > > > > > external party to conduct a survey and the results > > > > > > (translated to English) are here: > > > > > > > > >

> > > > > 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 > > > > > > &lt;yana(a)wikimedia.org&gt; wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi all, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What are some good studies of the gender of Wikipedia > readers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > Yana > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > Gendergap mailing list > > > > > > > Gendergap(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > ------- End of Original Message ------- > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > > > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l > > > > ------- End of Original Message ------- > > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l >