[Gendergap] Moderation?

[Sandra ordonez]

it would be cool if we published more on meta, particularly with ideas and
solutions. With a full time job, I some times hard to follow all the emails
(even though i really want to).

I also I think it would beneficial to identify some people that would be
willing to do volunteering for their regional area, or maybe meet in RL.
Person to person events do wonders to compliment virtual exchanges.

But overall, I think we've had some very good convos.



On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 3:48 PM, Sue Gardner <sgardner at wikimedia.org> wrote:

> Hey folks,
>
> Erik Moeller, my deputy, created this group at my request, and so I'm
> its owner. To recap for anyone who doesn't know: this list was
> prompted by a January 31 New York Times story about Wikipedia's gender
> gap. The NY Times story prompted a lot of discussion among experienced
> Wikipedians, new editors, and external people such as researchers and
> academics. We created this list so that the discussion had somewhere
> to go -- because people wanted to help, and we wanted to give their
> energy and momentum a place to grow.
>
> Thus far, I haven't made any attempts to moderate or shape the
> conversation here in any way. People who are used to Wikimedia lists
> probably are finding the experience here pretty familiar -- the
> conversation is unstructured, wide-ranging, and there's no real
> quality control. People who are more used to non-Wikimedia lists might
> find it TOO uncontrolled, too noisy, too wide-ranging: I don't know.
>
> My hope when we started the list was that it would be a place where
> people could come together to share experiences and information about
> the causes of Wikipedia's gender gap, and kick around possible
> solutions. I hoped that, at worst, it could become a sort of talkfest
> and "centre of expertise" on the gender gap issue --- and at best, it
> would be a place where real work would happen (e.g., the Women Edit
> Wikipedia Month type stuff). I assumed it'd be a pretty loose
> conversation, with plenty of noise to the signal, and it would end up
> (like many of our lists) being supplemented by work on wiki pages.
>
> And that, I think, is pretty much how it's playing out.
>
> So I'm curious to know from the people here:
>
> 1) Is the conversation here pretty much what you expected? Is it
> better or worse than you expected -- and if so, in what ways?
>
> 2) Are you comfortable with this discusson being mostly unmoderated,
> or would you prefer that we had some simple behavioural
> rules-of-engagement?
>
> 3) Would anyone care to offer to help me moderate? The moderation has
> been pretty light so far: a few people with questions about how to do
> something, and a half-dozen posts stuck in the approval queue --- it's
> very easy stuff to handle. I am often in meetings though, or
> travelling, so I've felt bad when someone's question or post is
> pending for hours. If you want to help, let me know off-list :-)
>
> 4) Any other comments about what we're doing here -- including, ideas
> about how we can be more effective.
>
> Thanks,
> Sue
>
>
> --
> Sue Gardner
> Executive Director
> Wikimedia Foundation
>
> 415 839 6885 <+14158396885> office
> 415 816 9967 <+14158169967> cell
>
> Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
> the sum of all knowledge.  Help us make it a reality!
>
> http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>



-- 
Sandra Ordonez
Web Astronaut

"Helping you rock out in the virtual world."

*www.collaborativenation.com*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110212/0ab7a469/attachment.htm