On 20 February 2011 11:35, Miguelinito miguelinito@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