Nope. Whether or not lots and lots of female-related content is generated and by whom, the participation factor is crucial. Without the women, there is no female perspective, period. And as far as gender measurement goes, even if you count all the ones who declined to specify their gender, the Dutch Wikipedia still comes up as less than 10% female.
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 5:54 PM, Romaine Wiki romaine.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
It is perfectly defined, it only matters which point of view you take.
The Wikimedia movement consists out of people, projects and content. There is less content about so-called female topics. There seem to be less projects that specifically cover those so-called female topics. And there are less female contributors. All three of these views are related with each other.
And as I sometimes write about those so-called female topics, I notice it is more difficult to write neutral about those topics and therefore harder to write about.
Further, I must say that I personally do not feel any need to disclose my gender, even while a lot of you have met me. Maybe it is different on some wikis, but generally I have the impression that many users do not want to disclose it either. So the percentage is less well defined, but I do think the m/f spread is far from balanced. But something what seems not to be defined is what those so-called female topics exactly are. And second, how large these subjects combined are in the outside world, because wanting them to be 50-50 is not fair if the subjects are 20-80 spread. Or maybe there are gender neutral topics also.
So yes, there are certainly things that are not defined, but what the gendergap is, seems to be defined.
Romaine
2015-01-03 16:48 GMT+01:00 Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com:
I find it interesting to discover via this conversation that it has not been defined yet!
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 4:12 PM, Bence Damokos bdamokos@gmail.com
wrote:
On Sat, Jan 3, 2015 at 3:33 PM, Jane Darnell jane023@gmail.com
wrote:
Nope. Gendergap is about the gap in female participation, not in female-related topics.
I would say it is both, but in either case this would be important to define if that is the criteria on which to solicit proposals. (The
vision
of Wikimedia is to share the sum of all human knowledge, so from that standpoint the end is to close the gap in coverage, diversity in the editorship is a very important means to it.)
In any case, experimentation with the grants programme is probably for
the
benefit of the community, but so is reliability and predictability. If
the
original assumptions are clear, announcing a major policy change for
the
grants programme only with 3 weeks of planned lead time seems to go
againts
those latter expectations unfortunately.
Best regards, Bence _______________________________________________ Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe