On 20 February 2011 11:35, Miguelinito <miguelinito(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Nice of you to read all the opinions (I also do).
Regarding your objective to increase the participation of women
up to 25 % in the next four years, why not 20 % or 30 %? I mean,
what reasons did you consider to choose that number? Is there some
stadistical study or something like that that suggests that number
as a suitable one, or is it just an arbitrary number chosen by somebody?
In the same line, what would you say if finally the result were 10 %?
Or 30 %? If 25 % is just a personal choice, under which criteria you could
think that you succeded or failed? Is it a scientifical effort, or
just a political effort under the knowledge that it's more than
probable that in four years (due to the natural increase of
implication of women in men's traditional roles) the final
percentage will be much higher than 25 %? Please let me know;
maybe I am wrong, together with some other people who think
like me. I need to *trust* you and *understand* you to have
positive feelings about the openness of this project.
Hi Miguel,
The 25% target was the result of discussion among me, some of the
senior staff at the Wikimedia Foundation, and the Wikimedia Board of
Trustees. We picked it because it seemed reasonable: it looked like
(we felt) a stretch, but a reasonable target that we thought we could
hit if we tried, and if we rallied existing editors and external
supporters to help.
I've heard that in various places (the Spanish Wikipedia?) some
editors are talking about the target represents a form of affirmative
action, and therefore discriminatory against men. I don't think that's
at all true. Wikipedia's not a zero-sum game: new women joining the
project don't displace existing male editors, nor do they prevent new
male editors from joining. I think that in fact the reality would be
the opposite. If Wikipedia can reduce some of the current impediments
to participation (ie., if we can achieve better usability, a less
combative culture, a culture that supports and coaches new editors, a
culture in which people are respectful of what they don't know and
don't tend to reflexively delete contributions from people who are
different from them), then I think that will make it easier for ALL
new people. Which would be good.
Also: I don't think that if we do nothing, Wikipedia will get more
gender-balanced over time. We don't have any change-over-time data on
gender: we only have one data point (the 13% from the UNU-Merit
study). But I don't think time is on our side. I worry that in fact
the opposite is true: that Wikipedia's culture may tend to
self-reinforce over time, and may actually be narrowing rather than
broadening. (I found it disturbing for example, while compiling that
post, that so many women had edited and then stopped, moving instead
to other online spaces which they found more receptive to them and
more enjoyable. We can't afford --and we don't want-- to lose good
people. We want them here!) So I think achieving 25% won't be easy.
But I think that if we put effort into achieving 25%, that 25% is a
large enough minority that those editors will be able themselves to
achieve some culture change, thereby effecting a virtuous cycle of
openness. Basically, if my theory is correct, it'll be very tough for
the first wave of new female editors, but it will get easier over
time.
Let me know if there are other concerns or reservations you've got
about this effort to redress the gender gap. I don't want experienced
editors to view it as oppositional: I'd like them to understand why it
matters and how it will help us all, and to help make it happen :-)
Thanks,
Sue