A statistical intervention is always welcome, I believe. Thank you for questioning the methodology, and insisting on a "margin of error".
It's obviously too early to dismantle a gender equality project however. Maybe I can point to another factoid which demonstrates a generative, systematic bias: only 20% of notable person biographies on WP are about women [1]. IMO, recruiting more women editors is an excellent way to combat that bias, because it doesn't presuppose we know how to fix the problem... only that we know some people who can do the job.
[1] see http://ijoc.org/ojs/index.php/ijoc/article/view/777, pdf is free for download
Thanks, Adam Wight
sydney.poore@gmail.com:
Claudia,
I understand where you are coming from. But talking about the demographics of WMF projects at the level of detail WMF is going now is somewhat newish. Not talking about the disparity in the past did not fix the problem. So, drawing attention to the issue seemed like a good idea. :-)
I tend to think that information is powerful in that it educates and changes behavior.
If anyone has suggestions as to how to make the research and data analysis better or just want a better understanding of how it is done, I encourage you to talk to the people doing the research. I have done this in the past and found them very approachable and more than willing to listen to ideas.
Sydney Poore User:FloNight
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 10:52 AM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Sarah, thanks
I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment.
fair enough, the "versus" reads a little strange to me in this context but never mind ;-)
in my view of the matter, and my thanks to Laura for filling in with a few concrete examples, taking positive action in this context would mean, I guess, to stop talking about any numbers that we might have to consider to be harmful - precisely: harmful for swift and wonderful encouragement for *positive* action
back to action, then including research ;-) Claudia
On Mon, 18 Jun 2012 07:36:10 -0700, Sarah Stierch wrote
Well, I'll be honest:
I don't really care about detailed research unless it shows our numbers changing at this point :-) (better or worse)...
I am focusing my energy on taking action versus research investment. So perhaps I shouldn't even bother with this conversation. We all know we have few women editing :-/
Sar
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors! :)
On Jun 18, 2012, at 12:07 AM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Thank you, Sarah
Data doesn't equal patriarchy
agree, I was not stipulating this, I am pointing to the philosophy
that feeds into the setup of such an inquiry
in the first place
I trust the survey.
up to you, Sarah which part of it do you trust? the outcome given the chosen setup? I have to reasons, either, for any doubt about the results
my argument is to take a close look at the setup of any statistics
exercise first and then ask, maybe, who
benefits most from the results, and then we are well into
partiarchally inspired politics, I guess,
anyway, this is the point I am trying to make
the task is, I think, to work on the following: which question would yield results that people on this list will feel
motivated by to turn into sustainable
positive action about a perceived gender gap among Wikipedia editors?
And having numbers is honestly more powerful than saying "oh most editors are
men."
well, given Risker/Anne's statement
> (most editors do not gender-identify ...
no one knows, right? so my argument says that since most editors do not gender-identify, it
would be wrong to say anything,
really
and hence any study of "gender gap" in Wikipedia (or any other project
of its kind) had better rely on other
data than these - which is why I think that in general such a
discussion of basics might be useful for Laura's
project, too - I'd say go for it, Laura :-)
If you'd like to talk to the organizers of the survey, I'm sure
they'd be
happy to discuss it.
thank you, yes, you were so kind as to give me the contact data last
time I raised the issue here, for which
thanks again
I'd be more happy to discuss the matter more thorougly here first
- or maybe anyone knows of another public forum which might be
interested in this topic?
Keep in mind the survey is people stating their gender in the survey itself, not their userspace/account.
indeed, agree, and this is precisely why any implicit claims on the relevance of the
results should not be writ large in our list
description
let us do away with looking at numbers first... as far as I can glean
from discussions like the ones we do on
this list, there is quite ample data other than numbers that allow us
to address the phenomenon of a
perceived gender gap in Wikipedia et al. and of course then take
positive action to remedy any perceived
imbalance
best & cheers Claudia
On Sun, 17 Jun 2012 23:35:14 -0700, Sarah Stierch wrote
Keep in mind the survey is people stating their gender in the survey itself, not their userspace/account. When I take the survey I can
choose a
gender or no response. (and maybe something else..I dont remember and
I'm
on my phone..) I am sure plenty of people who do not choose gender on their profile choose it anonymously on the profile.
I trust the survey. Data doesn't equal patriarchy when it is the
community
who is choosing to identify their gender in said survey. And having numbers is honestly more powerful than saying "oh most editors are
men."
If you'd like to talk to the organizers of the survey, I'm sure
they'd be
happy to discuss it.
Sarah
Sent via iPhone - I apologize in advance for my shortness or errors!
:)
On Jun 17, 2012, at 11:22 PM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
Thank you Risker/Anne for this statement which I think is true:
> (most editors do not gender-identify ... http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/2012-June/002876.html
what follows from this is, in my opinion, that any specific-looking
numbers the Wikimedia Foundation
(e.g.,
Wikipedia editor survey) chooses to have published about how many
women act as editors should not
be
trusted and hence not be perpetuated
and best not in our list description, either... "The most recent Wikipedia editor survey indicates that the
percentage of female contributors in
Wikimedia
projects is approximately nine percent."
could this starting sentence be changed, maybe, to reflect the fact
stated by Anne/Risker and not feed
into
such a seemingly negatively perceived climate in the first place?
ah, yes, this is me again, trying to raise some awareness also about
the promotional paradoxes in
results
created by patriarchally-inspired statistics exercises that purport
to come up with facts,
apologies if this makes you groan, maybe again, I will stick to my point though until I hear better arguments -
which, certainly, I am happy to take on
this
point
:-) thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
thanks & cheers, Claudia koltzenburg@w4w.net
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap