Hi Sam and all,
real life experiments
why not describe their rationale, their setting, the variables, if people knew they were producing data for your experiment etc.
does knowing someone's gender increase bias?
I'd say the outcome depends on cultural factors, e.g., bias is likely to be the higher in people who have the cultural habit of counting just two genders, for example
hi all,
Kerry said Wikipedia feels like being back in the 70s, early 70s, I'd say my feeling is: gender stats based on two genders only (let me reiterate this point) is a no go if you want to enable and encourage change. Gender gap should not be a singular: there are more than just two genders
let us take a look at the Wikipedia default in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences
it knows of options, but these are:
x prefer not to say x I am female x I am male
so, here, the default setting is a binary plus odd-person-out, and that is placed at the top; if you do nothing, the first box is ticked
luckily, newcomers neither see it at the start nor do they have to relate to this issue at all. Yet, if you do nothing, your user account is still being set in relation to a gender binary systemic bias
one might do some research into this and ask newcomers (by age group, maybe) what they feel when seeing this. But I would prefer not to draw any attention to this systemic default at all
anyway, what does this say about gender awareness among the users/staff(?) who may not even see this as an incident of Wikipedia's systemic bias?
and yes, even if this was not your intended meaning of the question:
is gender discrimination more likely when it is known?
I'd say: when gender discrimination is known, it is more likely that gender discrimination is part of the game... currently, wiht the Inspire Campaign, gender discrimination is being -- well -- advertised, in a way: with female users being singled out as a minority among Wikipedia editors - so what effect is to be expected in this light, given that an alleged majority of male* Wikipedians read this banner several times these days?
opinions?
so how to encourage change without drawing attention to "gender gap" in the singular only?
how bring change without feeding into a worldview that is itself aprt of the problem?
opinions?
cheers, Claudia ---------- Original Message ----------- From:Sam Katz smkatz@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 15:05:26 -0600 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
people's gender. does knowing someone's gender increase bias? My guess based on the real life experiments is yes.
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:23 PM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
when what is known? gender discrimination?
---------- Original Message ----------- From:Sam Katz smkatz@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent:Sat, 7 Mar 2015 10:28:55 -0600 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
does a wiki have single authorship (like the original britannica) or multiple authorship? does it value anonymity? is gender discrimination more likely when it is known?
On Sat, Mar 7, 2015 at 1:32 AM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
I would prefer we not track gender at all.
why not for a wiki like Wikipedia?
and, in your opinion, what exactly makes this wiki "a
ton harder" to deal
with?
thanks, Claudia
---------- Original Message ----------- From:Sam Katz smkatz@gmail.com To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities
<wiki-research-
l@lists.wikimedia.org> Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 17:29:22 -0600 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on gender
stats Re: Fwd:
[Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
It seems to me you are extrapolating from insufficient data. identity and presentation are not the same thing, but I guess the question in this context is "what is presentation in an online setting?" "how is gender shown in an online setting?"
That's pretty easy in one sense, but then you have "in a wiki like wikipedia" and it's a ton harder.
I would prefer we not track gender at all.
--Sam
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 5:16 PM, koltzenburg@w4w.net wrote:
yes, I agree the point you raise is interesting
in attacks, however, the perceived gender is probably
more
important than how the attacked user might identify
(or not)
and again, this might be one of the reasons why people identifying as female* tend to refrain from joining
surveys
and simply prefer not to be forced to say "who" they
"are" -
just like many others who do not identify as (e.g., heterosexual) males feel that online spaces get less
safe if
they say anything about their gender/s or sexual identity/identities... how come?
sometimes I think: if only more contemporaries in
hegemonic
positions would be willing to switch perspectives
for a
minute or two, nonsensical statements like "less than
20%" -
posited as outcomes of "research" - could be done
away with,
I guess
as for another attempt at switching one's
perspective, who
are those 80%? trans*, inter*, and male people? or
fluid
identities, maybe?
best, Claudia
---------- Original Message ----------- From:Sam Katz smkatz@gmail.com To:kerry.raymond@gmail.com, Research into Wikimedia
content
and communities wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent:Fri, 6 Mar 2015 16:57:58 -0600 Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
gender
stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers
> To those following: > I think this is a valid question I am raising. The > question of whether written communication has a > different way of relating than oral, in the > context of a wiki, which by definition is > collaborative, tracks users but allows anonymous > editing, is a valid question. > > Anonymity and pen names were first used often > times by women. > > I will also note that in terms of interface biases, > Facebook and other platforms (Acquia Commons) > that use photos of their users as adornments, to > show what users have posted do worse than > wikipedia in terms of encouraging safety and > courage ("be bold in editing") among their users. > > Clarifying what the question is in this thread is > a good first step towards answering it. If I was > confused, I stand corrected, but I believe this is > an important discussion to have. > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Kerry Raymond > kerry.raymond@gmail.com wrote: > > Do you say that as a man or as a woman? > > > > As a woman, you are assumed to be male routinely
in real
life and online. > > Many people make no effort whatsoever, letters
addressed
to "Dr Sir" etc. > > > > Has it got better over the years? Yes, in my real
life,
it has got somewhat > > better over the years. But getting involved in
Wikipedia
and its discussions > > about gender is like being back in 1970s. "Do we
really
have a gender gap?" > > "Does it matter if we have a gender gap?" > > > > Kerry > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org > >
[mailto:wiki-research-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On
Behalf Of Sam Katz > > Sent: Saturday, 7 March 2015 2:54 AM > > To: Research into Wikimedia content and communities > > Subject: Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
gender
stats Re: Fwd: > > [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > > > > hey, > > > > I just want to note that I am not convinced that
gender
expression > > online or indeed expression in general is the same
as it
is in real > > space. Granted, this may be stylistically what
you are
trying to > > prove. But I just wanted to add my two cents, that indeed it may not > > have a gender bias directly if the structure
does not
impose it. > > > > On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 9:08 AM,
wrote: > >> Hi Frances, > >> > >> your assumption (an "unknown" user in a language
where
> >> personal nouns are gendered will always
display the
> >> masculine form) is correct for deWP, I just
tested it
from a > >> new dummy account. > >> > >> you might call it a truly sytemic bias, and
especially so
> >> because community majority has not seen to
changing that
> >> space into gender friendly space for all, it
seems.
> >> > >> so this adds another item of disharmony to my
cautious note
> >> on gender stats > >> > >> best, > >> Claudia > >> ---------- Original Message ----------- > >> From:Frances Hocutt fhocutt@wikimedia.org > >> To:Research into Wikimedia content and communities > >> wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >> Sent:Thu, 5 Mar 2015 16:43:04 -0800 > >> Subject:Re: [Wiki-research-l] a cautious note on
gender
> >> stats Re: Fwd: [Gendergap] Wikipedia readers > >> > >>> On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 4:30 PM, Mark J. Nelson > >>> mjn@anadrome.org wrote: > >>> > >>> > > >>> > Frances Hocutt fhocutt@wikimedia.org writes: > >>> > > >>> > > One change that could address the latter
incentive is
> >> to change the > >>> > > defaults on MediaWiki so that masculine
grammatical
> >> gender is not the > >>> > > default for new users. It could be randomly
assigned,
> >> and then some men > >>> > as > >>> > > well as some women would have the incentive
to set
> >> their gender > >>> > preferences. > >>> > > >>> > That's how it currently works, according to
the manual,
> >> with the default > >>> > gender set to 'unknown': > >>> >
http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgDefaultUserOptions
> >>> > > >>> > I'm not sure if that's a recent change, or
what's in
> >> effect on > >>> > Wikimedia's own wikis, though. > >>> > > >>> > >>> I'm aware that it defaults to "unknown". My > >>> understanding--and please correct me if I'm
wrong--
> >>> is that an "unknown" user in a language where > >>> personal nouns are gendered will always display > >>> the masculine form (i.e. Usuario for a user of > >>> unknown gender on es.wp). So, a male user doesn't > >>> need to change his gender in preferences in order > >>> to be described accurately where a female user > >>> would need to set her gender in order to be > >>> described as "Usuaria". Hence, different > >>> incentives, and ones that could be addressed with > >>> different default behavior for an "unknown" user. > >>> > >>> -Frances > >> ------- End of Original Message ------- > >> > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> Wiki-research-l mailing list > >> Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Wiki-research-l mailing list > > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > >
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
> > _______________________________________________ > Wiki-research-l mailing list > Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki- > research-l ------- End of Original Message -------
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki- research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki- research-l
------- End of Original Message -------
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki-research-l
Wiki-research-l mailing list Wiki-research-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wiki- research-l
------- End of Original Message -------