Perhaps this list is a better place for this question (got no answer on gendergap list):
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences, you can specify a gender. Do we collect these data?
-Ole
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen <palnatoke@gmail.com
wrote:
Perhaps this list is a better place for this question (got no answer on gendergap list):
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences, you can specify a gender. Do we collect these data?
Preferences are stored in the database, so... yes?
The gender preference is for grammatical purposes in user-interface messages, and defaults to a neutral form.
-- brion
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:05 PM, Brion Vibber brion@pobox.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:50 PM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen <palnatoke@gmail.com
wrote:
...
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences, you can specify a gender. Do we collect these data?
Preferences are stored in the database, so... yes?
Thanks :-)
Are the numbers available on a per-wiki basis, so we can point to them and say "so-and-so many percent of our users self-identify as male, female, and none-of-your-business, respectively"?
-Ole
2011/2/9 Ole Palnatoke Andersen palnatoke@gmail.com:
Are the numbers available on a per-wiki basis, so we can point to them and say "so-and-so many percent of our users self-identify as male, female, and none-of-your-business, respectively"?
They're available to sysadmins only, because preferences are private data. Aggregate data about preferences is not currently published in an automated fashion.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
On 2/9/11 1:36 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
They're available to sysadmins only, because preferences are private data. Aggregate data about preferences is not currently published in an automated fashion.
Is it possible to get a single aggregate report, just so that we have a little data to work with on the gender gap list?
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/9/11 1:36 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
They're available to sysadmins only, because preferences are private data. Aggregate data about preferences is not currently published in an automated fashion.
Is it possible to get a single aggregate report, just so that we have a little data to work with on the gender gap list?
A general dump of preference usage across all wikis would be generally useful.
-Chad
On 11-02-09 01:41 PM, Chad wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Brandon Harrisbharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/9/11 1:36 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
They're available to sysadmins only, because preferences are private data. Aggregate data about preferences is not currently published in an automated fashion.
Is it possible to get a single aggregate report, just so that we have alittle data to work with on the gender gap list?
A general dump of preference usage across all wikis would be generally useful.
-Chad
I could use some fact based information on how many people are actually using individual skins myself.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
See
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:UserOptionStats and https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=25302
DieBuche On Mittwoch, 9. Februar 2011 at 22:46, Daniel Friesen wrote: On 11-02-09 01:41 PM, Chad wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:38 PM, Brandon Harrisbharris@wikimedia.org wrote:
On 2/9/11 1:36 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
They're available to sysadmins only, because preferences are private data. Aggregate data about preferences is not currently published in an automated fashion.
Is it possible to get a single aggregate report, just so that we have a little data to work with on the gender gap list?
A general dump of preference usage across all wikis would be generally useful.
-Chad
I could use some fact based information on how many people are actually using individual skins myself.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
2011/2/9 Brandon Harris bharris@wikimedia.org:
Is it possible to get a single aggregate report, just so that we have a little data to work with on the gender gap list?
I will run a query for you in the morning.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
You're the man, my friend.
On 2/9/11 2:06 PM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
2011/2/9 Brandon Harrisbharris@wikimedia.org:
Is it possible to get a single aggregate report, just so that we have alittle data to work with on the gender gap list?
I will run a query for you in the morning.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hello, Am Mittwoch 09 Februar 2011, 22:38:20 schrieb Brandon Harris:
Is it possible to get a single aggregate report, just so that we have a little data to work with on the gender gap list?
sure. I asked the toolserver-database:
en.wikipedia: Male: 233312 Femaile: 46973 All user: 13959842
de.wikipedia: Male: 35726 Female: 4800 All user: 1167708
fr.wikipedia: Male: 18556 Female: 3054 All user: 998668
commons: Male: 27980 Female: 5070 All user: 1464442
Say if you need more data.
Sincerly, DaB.
Awesome! Thanks!
On 2/9/11 2:18 PM, DaB. wrote:
Hello, Am Mittwoch 09 Februar 2011, 22:38:20 schrieb Brandon Harris:
Is it possible to get a single aggregate report, just so that we have a little data to work with on the gender gap list?
sure. I asked the toolserver-database:
en.wikipedia: Male: 233312 Femaile: 46973 All user: 13959842
de.wikipedia: Male: 35726 Female: 4800 All user: 1167708
fr.wikipedia: Male: 18556 Female: 3054 All user: 998668
commons: Male: 27980 Female: 5070 All user: 1464442
Say if you need more data.
Sincerly, DaB.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hoi, I would be interested in learning sr and ru. I understand that for these languages the gender actually matters in the presentation in the user interface. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 February 2011 23:18, DaB. WP@daniel.baur4.info wrote:
Hello, Am Mittwoch 09 Februar 2011, 22:38:20 schrieb Brandon Harris:
Is it possible to get a single aggregate report, just so that we have a little data to work with on the gender gap list?
sure. I asked the toolserver-database:
en.wikipedia: Male: 233312 Femaile: 46973 All user: 13959842
de.wikipedia: Male: 35726 Female: 4800 All user: 1167708
fr.wikipedia: Male: 18556 Female: 3054 All user: 998668
commons: Male: 27980 Female: 5070 All user: 1464442
Say if you need more data.
Sincerly, DaB.
-- Userpage: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] — PGP: 2B255885
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hello, Am Mittwoch 09 Februar 2011, 23:36:12 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi, I would be interested in learning sr and ru.
sr.wikipedia: Male: 1666 Femaile: 414 All user: 78180
ru.wikipedia: Male: 80491 Femaile: 23750 All user: 620393
pl.wikipedia: Male: 12106 Femaile: 2999 All user: 414511
(nl.wikipedia – somebody asked in IRC): Male: 8977 Femaile: 1781 All user: 368815
I understand that for these languages the gender actually matters in the presentation in the user interface. Thanks, GerardM
Good night, DaB.
Would it be possible to get this information for es.wp and sv.wp?
Thanks
2011/2/9 DaB. WP@daniel.baur4.info:
Hello, Am Mittwoch 09 Februar 2011, 23:36:12 schrieb Gerard Meijssen:
Hoi, I would be interested in learning sr and ru.
sr.wikipedia: Male: 1666 Femaile: 414 All user: 78180
ru.wikipedia: Male: 80491 Femaile: 23750 All user: 620393
pl.wikipedia: Male: 12106 Femaile: 2999 All user: 414511
(nl.wikipedia – somebody asked in IRC): Male: 8977 Femaile: 1781 All user: 368815
I understand that for these languages the gender actually matters in the presentation in the user interface. Thanks, GerardM
Good night, DaB.
-- Userpage: [[:w:de:User:DaB.]] — PGP: 2B255885
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
* "M. Williamson" node.ue@gmail.com [Wed, 9 Feb 2011 17:29:06 -0700]:
Would it be possible to get this information for es.wp and sv.wp?
There should be one table with all lang.wp and a column with male to female ratio. Dmitriy
On 10 February 2011 06:06, Dmitriy Sintsov questpc@rambler.ru wrote:
- "M. Williamson" node.ue@gmail.com [Wed, 9 Feb 2011 17:29:06 -0700]:
Would it be possible to get this information for es.wp and sv.wp?
There should be one table with all lang.wp and a column with male to female ratio.
Since the vast majority of users apparently don't specify, that data wouldn't be very useful. It's only useful if can justify the assumption that people that specify have the same gender ratio as the general population (which could easily not be true - for example, women may choose not to specify because they don't want to be singled out for "special" treatment [insert obligatory xkcd reference here - I'm at work so I won't go hunting for it, but you know the one I mean] so the ratio for people that do specify would overestimate the number of men).
Could we get the proportion of users with more than 10 edits that specify? It's possible that is significantly higher than for all users, in which case we could get some useful numbers for those users.
Hoi, For English asking the gender or our readers, editors is not useful. For Slavic languages it is. The localisers at translatewiki.net actively incorporate the difference in addressing in their work. If you want to optimise the results, we can advertise the fact why we ask people's gender. Thanks, Gerard
On 10 February 2011 13:53, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 10 February 2011 06:06, Dmitriy Sintsov questpc@rambler.ru wrote:
- "M. Williamson" node.ue@gmail.com [Wed, 9 Feb 2011 17:29:06 -0700]:
Would it be possible to get this information for es.wp and sv.wp?
There should be one table with all lang.wp and a column with male to female ratio.
Since the vast majority of users apparently don't specify, that data wouldn't be very useful. It's only useful if can justify the assumption that people that specify have the same gender ratio as the general population (which could easily not be true - for example, women may choose not to specify because they don't want to be singled out for "special" treatment [insert obligatory xkcd reference here - I'm at work so I won't go hunting for it, but you know the one I mean] so the ratio for people that do specify would overestimate the number of men).
Could we get the proportion of users with more than 10 edits that specify? It's possible that is significantly higher than for all users, in which case we could get some useful numbers for those users.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
For English asking the gender or our readers, editors is not useful. For Slavic languages it is. The localisers at translatewiki.net actively
+ {{support}} :-)
Make a note that Slavic languages still need to resolve some important issues: * https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17160 [Add ability to show feminine version of "User:" in female users' user pages' titles] * https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24156 [Messages of log enteries should support GENDER]
-- Leinad
On 02/09/2011 11:54 PM, DaB. wrote:
Am Mittwoch 09 Februar 2011, 23:36:12 schrieb Gerard Meijssen: sr.wikipedia: Male: 1666 Femaile: 414 All user: 78180
ru.wikipedia: Male: 80491 Femaile: 23750 All user: 620393
Perhaps the difference is due to the fact that we haven't really advertised the possibility and, AFAIK, we don't actually use it in the translation.
I understand that for these languages the gender actually matters in the presentation in the user interface.
It does, but there are workarounds.
Does that include data on gadgets activated and skins used? How would one gather those?
Leo On Thursday, February 10, 2011 at 9:38 AM, Nikola Smolenski wrote:
On 02/09/2011 11:54 PM, DaB. wrote:
Am Mittwoch 09 Februar 2011, 23:36:12 schrieb Gerard Meijssen: sr.wikipedia: Male: 1666 Femaile: 414 All user: 78180
ru.wikipedia: Male: 80491 Femaile: 23750 All user: 620393
Perhaps the difference is due to the fact that we haven't really advertised the possibility and, AFAIK, we don't actually use it in the translation.
I understand that for these languages the gender actually matters in the presentation in the user interface.
It does, but there are workarounds.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On 11-02-09 02:18 PM, DaB. wrote:
Hello, Am Mittwoch 09 Februar 2011, 22:38:20 schrieb Brandon Harris:
Is it possible to get a single aggregate report, just so that we have a little data to work with on the gender gap list?
sure. I asked the toolserver-database: ...
Say if you need more data.
Sincerly, DaB
Since we've already got some of these, would you mind getting me some aggregate data for skin preferences.
In particular I'd like to know how many users across Wikimedia (en.wp, maybe commons too might be enough for that kind of stat for now) are using the legacy skins. We essentially keep repeating a discussion that goes dev A) "These legacy skins are getting in the way of <x>." dev B) "If they're in your way, why don't we just get rid of them..." dev C) "People on en.wp are using those skins, they're going to complain, we can't get rid of them." without basing a discussion on any real statistic. So having some real statistics to discuss (and in the future some voluntary explanations on why people are using the legacy skins) to come up with actual solutions would be good.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
2011/2/10 Daniel Friesen lists@nadir-seen-fire.com
Since we've already got some of these, would you mind getting me some aggregate data for skin preferences.
In particular I'd like to know how many users across Wikimedia (en.wp, maybe commons too might be enough for that kind of stat for now) are using the legacy skins.
The actual statistic may not reflect what the users actually want. I have an account with a few edits in a lot of projects and when i enter them for the first since the Vector switch i see that i still have Monobook there.
So this measurement should not just check the preference itself, but also when the user last logged in. If that's not possible, then at least when did the user made the last edit.
That said, i am all for deprecating old skins which are barely used and gathering clever statistics about preferences and updating the defaults.
On 11-02-09 11:28 PM, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
2011/2/10 Daniel Friesenlists@nadir-seen-fire.com
Since we've already got some of these, would you mind getting me some aggregate data for skin preferences.
In particular I'd like to know how many users across Wikimedia (en.wp, maybe commons too might be enough for that kind of stat for now) are using the legacy skins.
The actual statistic may not reflect what the users actually want. I have an account with a few edits in a lot of projects and when i enter them for the first since the Vector switch i see that i still have Monobook there.
So this measurement should not just check the preference itself, but also when the user last logged in. If that's not possible, then at least when did the user made the last edit.
That said, i am all for deprecating old skins which are barely used and gathering clever statistics about preferences and updating the defaults.
I expected those would be harder to so so I just asked for something simple to start with.
You could try filtering it by user_touched. You might get some off data if there was any mass change that automated changes to preferences, but it should theoretically be pretty good.
~Daniel Friesen (Dantman, Nadir-Seen-Fire) [http://daniel.friesen.name]
Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
2011/2/10 Daniel Friesen lists@nadir-seen-fire.com
Since we've already got some of these, would you mind getting me some aggregate data for skin preferences.
In particular I'd like to know how many users across Wikimedia (en.wp, maybe commons too might be enough for that kind of stat for now) are using the legacy skins.
The actual statistic may not reflect what the users actually want. I have an account with a few edits in a lot of projects and when i enter them for the first since the Vector switch i see that i still have Monobook there.
Then that's the opposite than me :) I changed back to monobook in the projects that matter, while I didn't bother in smaller projects, where it shows me the default (vector).
Just making sure I understand the data below. I'm assuming this means there are 13,959,842 total accounts in the English Wikipedia?
Interesting because there are a total of 651,652 cumulative "New Wikipedians" (users with >=10 lifetime edits) as of Dec 2010. Which would mean that only 4.7% of all registered accounts qualify to be considered "New Wikipedian," so the vast majority of our accounts are for readers?
Howie
On 2/9/11 2:18 PM, DaB. wrote:
Hello, Am Mittwoch 09 Februar 2011, 22:38:20 schrieb Brandon Harris:
Is it possible to get a single aggregate report, just so that we have a little data to work with on the gender gap list?
sure. I asked the toolserver-database:
en.wikipedia: Male: 233312 Femaile: 46973 All user: 13959842
de.wikipedia: Male: 35726 Female: 4800 All user: 1167708
fr.wikipedia: Male: 18556 Female: 3054 All user: 998668
commons: Male: 27980 Female: 5070 All user: 1464442
Say if you need more data.
Sincerly, DaB.
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Howie Fung hfung@wikimedia.org wrote:
Just making sure I understand the data below. I'm assuming this means there are 13,959,842 total accounts in the English Wikipedia?
Interesting because there are a total of 651,652 cumulative "New Wikipedians" (users with >=10 lifetime edits) as of Dec 2010. Which would mean that only 4.7% of all registered accounts qualify to be considered "New Wikipedian," so the vast majority of our accounts are for readers?
Yep, that lines up about right with my understanding of the editor activity distribution. When someone starts editing, they are very likely to stop after one edit.
-Sage
Sage Ross wrote:
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 9:49 PM, Howie Fung hfung@wikimedia.org wrote:
Just making sure I understand the data below. I'm assuming this means there are 13,959,842 total accounts in the English Wikipedia?
Interesting because there are a total of 651,652 cumulative "New Wikipedians" (users with >=10 lifetime edits) as of Dec 2010. Which would mean that only 4.7% of all registered accounts qualify to be considered "New Wikipedian," so the vast majority of our accounts are for readers?
Yep, that lines up about right with my understanding of the editor activity distribution. When someone starts editing, they are very likely to stop after one edit.
-Sage
And many don't even perform one edit. As I don't believe so many people create them just to change their preferences, it is a mistery for me why do they do so.
On 02/11/2011 12:24 AM, Platonides wrote:
And many don't even perform one edit. As I don't believe so many people create them just to change their preferences, it is a mistery for me why do they do so.
Becoming an active wikipedian is a process in many steps, each involving a large amount of hesitation. Does this article really need improvement? Can I fix it? Should I fix it? Do I know how to edit? Do I have the time right now? Should I register? After having improved the text, should I really press save, or should I just quit and forget about it?
Maybe we have a million readers, and only 10% think the article needs improvement, only 10% of them think they could fix it, etc. We are losing people in every step of hesitation from reader to active contributor. It is really irrelevant in which step we lose them. We may have a million readers and we get a hundred contributors. These might be 100 out of 1,000 registered users or 100 out of 10,000 who thought about registering, or 100 out of 5,000 who went half-way through registration. The constant is 100 and the other number is quite arbitrary. Any statistic based on that arbitrary number is bound to be bad math.
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Platonides wrote:
And many don't even perform one edit. As I don't believe so many people create them just to change their preferences, it is a mistery for me why do they do so.
Becoming an active wikipedian is a process in many steps, each involving a large amount of hesitation. Does this article really need improvement? Can I fix it? Should I fix it? Do I know how to edit? Do I have the time right now? Should I register? After having improved the text, should I really press save, or should I just quit and forget about it?
Maybe we have a million readers, and only 10% think the article needs improvement, only 10% of them think they could fix it, etc. We are losing people in every step of hesitation from reader to active contributor. It is really irrelevant in which step we lose them. We may have a million readers and we get a hundred contributors. These might be 100 out of 1,000 registered users or 100 out of 10,000 who thought about registering, or 100 out of 5,000 who went half-way through registration. The constant is 100 and the other number is quite arbitrary. Any statistic based on that arbitrary number is bound to be bad math.
There's good math to be had for the digging.
Can you envision a leaky pipeline starting with the mass of readers' first visits to WP and the terminus at long-term editors. Something along the lines of https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Kaplan%E2%80%93Meier_estimato... seems appropriate, maybe someone can pick a more optimistic analogy. At each new obstacle the cohort shrinks. If it was possible to interest someone with statistical training to assemble actual data, I imagine it would be useful and entertaining. It might have to be collected prospectively. Would wiki-research-l be a better forum for this?
On 11/02/11 00:24, Platonides wrote: <snip>
And many don't even perform one edit. As I don't believe so many people create them just to change their preferences, it is a mistery for me why do they do so.
My brother is always logged in but barely edit anything. The top reasons are: - he uses the watchlist - the edit interface makes it too long / too hard to correct minor typos or rephrase a sentence. - trolls
I am myself mostly logged in but barely edit now a day (I prefer contributing to the MW code base).
On 02/09/2011 11:18 PM, DaB. wrote:
sure. I asked the toolserver-database:
en.wikipedia: Male: 233312 Femaile: 46973 All user: 13959842
One thing that could be interesting is to trace the career of users: When they register, how frequent they edit, if the frequency varies over time, and if these patterns differ between men and women and the gender-anonymous.
Perhaps we have more gender equality among medium-activity users, but the most extreme are men? Or vice versa? Perhaps users who signed up in 2010 are more gender equal than those recruited in 2007? Or not?
Now, if a woman uses a male pseudonym, she would obviously self-declare as a man, so we can't know if this correlates to real gender. We could only measure the setting.
On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Lars Aronsson lars@aronsson.se wrote:
One thing that could be interesting is to trace the career of users: When they register, how frequent they edit, if the frequency varies over time, and if these patterns differ between men and women and the gender-anonymous.
User:Dispenser is working on something similar, I think for the next Signpost.
Take a look at this (a work in progress and not mine, so please don't distribute): http://toolserver.org/~dispenser/temp/gender/total_edit_zero_2011-02-10.png
The table at the left traces gender identification rates for editors with less than or equal to the listed number of edits (but more than the previous row). So the first row is editors with 0 edits, the second is editors with 1 edit, the third is editors with 2-3 edits, then 4-7 edits, etc. The last row is everyone with over ~65k edits (and less than 5,000,000).
So the takeaways are:
a) the more edits you make, the more likely you are to declare your gender.
b) the ratio of declared females to males falls from about 20% for people who make just zero or one edit, to a stable 5-6% for people who make 1000 or more edits.
Of course, as Woonpton notes, there could be factors that distort that. Maybe women who become active editors are more likely than other women to *not* declare gender. But at first glance, it would seem that the gender gap is larger among very active editors.
-Sage
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.kattouw@gmail.comwrote:
2011/2/9 Ole Palnatoke Andersen palnatoke@gmail.com:
Are the numbers available on a per-wiki basis, so we can point to them and say "so-and-so many percent of our users self-identify as male, female, and none-of-your-business, respectively"?
They're available to sysadmins only, because preferences are private data. Aggregate data about preferences is not currently published in an automated fashion.
The gender preference is actually marked as public in the preferences page
already so it shouldn't be a violation of expectations to publish aggregate data.
Best regards, Bence
On 9 February 2011 23:09, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com wrote:
The gender preference is actually marked as public in the preferences page
already so it shouldn't be a violation of expectations to publish aggregate data.
Because it actually _is_ completely public, without any aggregation. Ask {{gender:Catrope|male|female|unknown}} on a page, and you’ll get the answer, no privacy there.
-- [[cs:User:Mormegil | Petr Kadlec]]
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 10:36 PM, Roan Kattouw roan.kattouw@gmail.com wrote:
2011/2/9 Ole Palnatoke Andersen palnatoke@gmail.com:
Are the numbers available on a per-wiki basis, so we can point to them and say "so-and-so many percent of our users self-identify as male, female, and none-of-your-business, respectively"?
They're available to sysadmins only, because preferences are private data. Aggregate data about preferences is not currently published in an automated fashion.
That's not accurate. Aggregate preference data is available to toolserver users — the view omits the user ID field.
2011/2/10 Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org:
That's not accurate. Aggregate preference data is available to toolserver users — the view omits the user ID field.
The view of which table? Running "SHOW TABLES;" on enwiki_p, I don't see user_properties or anything else that looks like it might contain preferences data.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
prefstats maybe?
On Feb 10, 2011, at 8:17 AM, Roan Kattouw wrote:
2011/2/10 Andrew Garrett agarrett@wikimedia.org:
That's not accurate. Aggregate preference data is available to toolserver users — the view omits the user ID field.
The view of which table? Running "SHOW TABLES;" on enwiki_p, I don't see user_properties or anything else that looks like it might contain preferences data.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
2011/2/10 Soxred93 soxred93@gmail.com:
prefstats maybe?
Yeah, that would contain some data, but only for the skin and usebetatoolbar preferences.
Roan Kattouw (Catrope)
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 4:13 PM, Ole Palnatoke Andersen palnatoke@gmail.com wrote:
Are the numbers available on a per-wiki basis, so we can point to them and say "so-and-so many percent of our users self-identify as male, female, and none-of-your-business, respectively"?
I don't think the numbers would even tell you that. Users are not prompted for their gender, so "Unspecified" might mean a user saw the field and chose not to select anything, or it might just mean they never checked their preferences (as is likely the case for the vast majority of users).
Hoi, I blogged about the practical ways we can support gender in our user interface.
I believe that when we address women properly we will gain respect as well as more buy in. As I describe practical things that will enhance the experience of women, I am really eager to learn to what extend we are willing to put our money where our mouth is in welcoming women to our projects. Thanks, GerardM
http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2011/02/female-form-comes-at-cost.html
On 9 February 2011 21:50, Ole Palnatoke Andersen palnatoke@gmail.comwrote:
Perhaps this list is a better place for this question (got no answer on gendergap list):
On http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences, you can specify a gender. Do we collect these data?
-Ole
-- http://palnatoke.org * @palnatoke * +4522934588
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
There's a parallel talk into it chapter about gender gap. This gap is part of a larger gap involving software development in general; there are few programmer women. I presume, that this highlights a similarity between wiki and a software development environment; and really many from most enthusiast, and productive contributors are too programmers.
But... as you know, the profile of a programmer is far from the profile of a woman; consider the famous statement "The three chief virtues of a programmer are: Laziness, Impatience and Hubris.". Then consider the pedia statement "Be bold!", that is a gentler way to name "hubris". :-)
Is gender gap so mysterious?
Alex
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org