On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Jeremy Baron <jeremy(a)tuxmachine.com> wrote:
Mako's study]
which includes the initial numbers from before his changes. I
thought the study results were already released by the time he did the
study but maybe I'm wrong. Anyway at least there are numbers. But IMHO
absolute numbers are not as important as change rates over time. (which has
been the topic of debate among researchers not too long ago also) --~~~~
-Jeremy
Well, what we got in that study was a mathematical manipulation resulting
in a convenient upwards adjustment of the 2010 UNU survey figures for
female participation (from 12.6% to 16.1%), while the gender split of the
Foundation's own 2012 survey was never published.
And since then, the WMF hasn't conducted any more editor surveys.
It's been two years: where are the figures, and where is the promised[1]
data set[2]?
The longer this carries on, the more the matter lends itself to suspicions
that the figures were buried, because they came out even worse than the
8.5% and 9% from the two 2011 editor surveys.
There is an easy way to counter such suspicions: publish the figures.
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Research:Wikipedia_Editor_Surv…
[2]
http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/surveys/ (no sign of the 2012 data
dump there at the time of writing)