Is gender diversity a one-way street?

[Eric Corbett]

Since 2007 the WMF has had three CEOs: Sue Gardner (2007-2014), Leila Tretikov (2014-2016) and Katherine Maher (2016 to date). Is gender diversity yet another of those terms co-opted by the WMF only to have its meaning torn out of it? Has it "surfaced" as jobs for the girls?

[Randy from Boise]

Mr. Corbett, are you trolling?

RfB

[Eric Corbett]

Mr. Corbett, are you trolling?

RfB

Please explain yourself Randy.

[Midsize Jake]

I think he's trying to say that it should be obvious enough that the WMF has been hiring women into the ED job for reasons that are both compensatory and aspirational. In other words, they hope the woman at the top gives people the false impression that the Wikipedia community is friendly to women, and they also hope that she'll actually make some headway in terms of achieving that goal. The fact that none of it seems to be working may not even be relevant - I mean, it's not like hiring a male ED is going to make the situation any better just because the ED is male, right?

But you're absolutely correct in that they've torn the meaning out of the term "gender diversity" for their own shallow purposes and redefined it. (IOW, now they're saying it actually means the percentage of biography articles about women, not the gender disparity between users.) I mentioned last night that we should do a blog post on this subject - but what we don't know is, has the impetus to redefine the term come from the top? Or somewhere in the middle, and if so, where? I don't think it's coming from the general population of users, at least not initially anyway. (I could be wrong about that, but I really don't think so.)

Anyway, I just got my "Presidential alert" test text message, so that's depressing. Another day ruined...

[Eric Corbett]

I think he's trying to say that it should be obvious enough that the WMF has been hiring women into the ED job for reasons that are both compensatory and aspirational.

That's not a definition of "trolling" that I've ever heard before. It's bad enough when the WMF keeps redefining words, like Humpty Dumpty, without aping them here.

[AndyTheGrump]

To answer the original question, without evidence that other candidates for the CEO position were discounted due to their gender there is no way to be sure. Sample size too small...

[Poetlister]

What proportion of WMF trustees or other senior staff are female?

[Beeblebrox]

Something I noticed when I attended Wikimania was that while we all know the editing community at large skews heavily towards males, when you get to the more advanced levels the scales are much less out of balance. There’s plenty of women “power players” in both the volunteer community and the paid staff. I don’t claim to have an explanation for that, just an anecdotal observation.

[Eric Corbett]

To answer the original question, without evidence that other candidates for the CEO position were discounted due to their gender there is no way to be sure. Sample size too small...

Is it a sample size or a population size? Was there a CEO before 2007?

[Midsize Jake]

There's definitely a higher proportion of women on the WMF staff than among WP users in general, but as to why that is, presumably there's a feminist explanation (women do better in less openly-abusive environments) and an anti-feminist explanation (women are the beneficiaries of "diversity hiring"). Both of those explanations probably have elements of truth to them, but the degree to which either explanation is true probably differs with each individual staff member/hiring process - and both are just as likely to be completely false in any given instance. Remember, San Francisco is one of the most expensive places to live in the world, so that's probably somehow a factor too.

Also, I'm pretty sure women are still a minority on the WMF staff, but getting precise numbers might not be possible just by looking at all the (WMF) users on Meta.

[Eric Corbett]

Perhaps the only success the WMF has actually had in addressing the gender gap is in its own management?

[Randy from Boise]

I think he's trying to say that it should be obvious enough that the WMF has been hiring women into the ED job for reasons that are both compensatory and aspirational.

That's not a definition of "trolling" that I've ever heard before. It's bad enough when the WMF keeps redefining words, like Humpty Dumpty, without aping them here.

Trolling is making an outlandish comment in order to provoke a reaction (and to derive satisfaction from the shit-storm thus created).

OBVIOUSLY, WMF is practicing "affirmative action" with the Executive Director position, but small sample size and all that. Get back to me 20 years from now if there are five more consecutive women EDs and we'll discuss whether there is room for complaint.

RfB

[Eric Corbett]

I think he's trying to say that it should be obvious enough that the WMF has been hiring women into the ED job for reasons that are both compensatory and aspirational.

That's not a definition of "trolling" that I've ever heard before. It's bad enough when the WMF keeps redefining words, like Humpty Dumpty, without aping them here.

Trolling is making an outlandish comment in order to provoke a reaction (and to derive satisfaction from the shit-storm thus created).

OBVIOUSLY, WMF is practicing "affirmative action" with the Executive Director position, but small sample size and all that. Get back to me 20 years from now if there are five more consecutive women EDs and we'll discuss whether there is room for complaint.

RfB

“Outlandish”? Your command of the English language is at best idiosyncratic. With your permission, I won’t be getting back to you at all until you learn how to communicate in a more non-adversarial way. I have nothing else to say to you now, so don’t waste your time in trying to think of some witty riposte in which you mangle the meaning of yet another word as I won’t see it.

[iii]

“Outlandish”? Your command of the English language is at best idiosyncratic.

I'm trying to wrap my head around why you think the use of this adjective makes his command of English questionable.

Outlandish has straightforward provenance within English. The meaning in context seems clear to me too.

[Eric Corbett]

“Outlandish”? Your command of the English language is at best idiosyncratic.

I'm trying to wrap my head around why you think the use of this adjective makes his command of English questionable.

Outlandish has straightforward provenance within English. The meaning in context seems clear to me too.

Try harder, after taking off your "I hate Eric Corbett and everything he says" filter.

[iii]

“Outlandish”? Your command of the English language is at best idiosyncratic.

I'm trying to wrap my head around why you think the use of this adjective makes his command of English questionable.

Outlandish has straightforward provenance within English. The meaning in context seems clear to me too.

Try harder, after taking off your "I hate Eric Corbett and everything he says" filter.

I mean, I know you only by reputation, but it seems to me that a lot of your prickliness is a result of Wikipedia toxicity. This isn't Wikipedia, though, so that's why I'm a little confused. I really don't hate Eric Corbett nor do I hate everything Eric Corbett says.

To be clear, I am genuinely perplexed by your response where in the next sentence you request RfB be "more non-adversarial". From this, I gather that you either genuinely didn't think that what he had written was proper English (I think this is not very likely, but it's still a possibility I'm entertaining), or you are instead engaging in paradoxical hypocrisy. Maybe that's intentional? I don't know. We're on the internet and it's hard to understand what people actually mean through their little quips of text.

Of course, this is all , and I am happy to answer the initial question you posted with reference to Betteridge's Law of Headlines, but it seems to me that something else is going on here that I cannot follow.

[lonza leggiera]

“Outlandish”? Your command of the English language is at best idiosyncratic.

I'm trying to wrap my head around why you think the use of this adjective makes his command of English questionable.

Outlandish has straightforward provenance within English. The meaning in context seems clear to me too.

Try harder, after taking off your "I hate Eric Corbett and everything he says" filter.

I mean, I know you only by reputation, but it seems to me that a lot of your prickliness is a result of Wikipedia toxicity. This isn't Wikipedia, though, so that's why I'm a little confused. I really don't hate Eric Corbett nor do I hate everything Eric Corbett says.

To be clear, I am genuinely perplexed by your response where in the next sentence you request RfB be "more non-adversarial". From this, I gather that you either genuinely didn't think that what he had written was proper English …

I took Mr Corbett's questioning of Mr Randy in Boises's command of English as being prompted by the latter's implied characterisation of the first post in this thread as "outlandish", which, I presume, Mr Corbett believes to be nothing of the sort.

[Eric Corbett]

“Outlandish”? Your command of the English language is at best idiosyncratic.

I'm trying to wrap my head around why you think the use of this adjective makes his command of English questionable.

Outlandish has straightforward provenance within English. The meaning in context seems clear to me too.

Try harder, after taking off your "I hate Eric Corbett and everything he says" filter.

I mean, I know you only by reputation, but it seems to me that a lot of your prickliness is a result of Wikipedia toxicity. This isn't Wikipedia, though, so that's why I'm a little confused. I really don't hate Eric Corbett nor do I hate everything Eric Corbett says.

To be clear, I am genuinely perplexed by your response where in the next sentence you request RfB be "more non-adversarial". From this, I gather that you either genuinely didn't think that what he had written was proper English …

I took Mr Corbett's questioning of Mr Randy in Boises's command of English as being prompted by the latter's implied characterisation of the first post in this thread as "outlandish", which, I presume, Mr Corbett believes to be nothing of the sort.

Correct.

[Randy from Boise]

I think he's trying to say that it should be obvious enough that the WMF has been hiring women into the ED job for reasons that are both compensatory and aspirational.

That's not a definition of "trolling" that I've ever heard before. It's bad enough when the WMF keeps redefining words, like Humpty Dumpty, without aping them here.

Trolling is making an outlandish comment in order to provoke a reaction (and to derive satisfaction from the shit-storm thus created).

OBVIOUSLY, WMF is practicing "affirmative action" with the Executive Director position, but small sample size and all that. Get back to me 20 years from now if there are five more consecutive women EDs and we'll discuss whether there is room for complaint.

RfB

“Outlandish”? Your command of the English language is at best idiosyncratic. With your permission, I won’t be getting back to you at all until you learn how to communicate in a more non-adversarial way. I have nothing else to say to you now, so don’t waste your time in trying to think of some witty riposte in which you mangle the meaning of yet another word as I won’t see it.

You're the one with so stilted a vocabulary that you didn't know the meaning of the term "trolling," Eric, even though you are clearly a master of the art.

RfB

[iii]

I took Mr Corbett's questioning of Mr Randy in Boises's command of English as being prompted by the latter's implied characterisation of the first post in this thread as "outlandish", which, I presume, Mr Corbett believes to be nothing of the sort.

Correct.

The idea is, then, that because the first post is obviously not outlandish that RfB doesn't know what the word "outlandish" means.

Sorry that this didn't parse for me.

Carry on.

This place sure can be exhausting sometimes.

I have no sympathy with the position that having three women serve as CEOs in succession is somehow problematic. But, again, maybe I'm missing some subtext that you're trying to get at. Like, maybe it's politically cynical for the board to do nothing about Wikipedia's gender imbalance while laudably fighting against current demographic biases in CEOs.

Again, exhausting.

[Randy from Boise]

I took Mr Corbett's questioning of Mr Randy in Boises's command of English as being prompted by the latter's implied characterisation of the first post in this thread as "outlandish", which, I presume, Mr Corbett believes to be nothing of the sort.

Correct.

The idea is, then, that because the first post is obviously not outlandish that RfB doesn't know what the word "outlandish" means.

Sorry that this didn't parse for me.

Carry on.

This place sure can be exhausting sometimes.

I have no sympathy with the position that having three women serve as CEOs in succession is somehow problematic. But, again, maybe I'm missing some subtext that you're trying to get at. Like, maybe it's politically cynical for the board to do nothing about Wikipedia's gender imbalance while laudably fighting against current demographic biases in CEOs.

Again, exhausting.

Can we agree on "pointedly provocative" instead of "outlandish"?

"Outrageous" might also work.

Moreover: oooooooo, THREE WHOLE ED WOMEN IN A ROW!!! CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE MENZ!!!

Jesus Christ...

RfB

[Eric Corbett]

I have no sympathy with the position that having three women serve as CEOs in succession is somehow problematic. But, again, maybe I'm missing some subtext that you're trying to get at. Like, maybe it's politically cynical for the board to do nothing about Wikipedia's gender imbalance while laudably fighting against current demographic biases in CEOs.

How many other charities can you think of who have only ever had female CEOs?

[Randy from Boise]

I have no sympathy with the position that having three women serve as CEOs in succession is somehow problematic. But, again, maybe I'm missing some subtext that you're trying to get at. Like, maybe it's politically cynical for the board to do nothing about Wikipedia's gender imbalance while laudably fighting against current demographic biases in CEOs.

How many other charities can you think of who have only ever had female CEOs?

How many other charities can you think of that have only had male CEOs?

RfB

[iii]

I have no sympathy with the position that having three women serve as CEOs in succession is somehow problematic. But, again, maybe I'm missing some subtext that you're trying to get at. Like, maybe it's politically cynical for the board to do nothing about Wikipedia's gender imbalance while laudably fighting against current demographic biases in CEOs.

How many other charities can you think of who have only ever had female CEOs?

Almost none. I do not understand why this should mean that it's a problem for a charity to only ever have women leading them. Would that more charities had only women CEOs! Why not?

[Eric Corbett]

I have no sympathy with the position that having three women serve as CEOs in succession is somehow problematic. But, again, maybe I'm missing some subtext that you're trying to get at. Like, maybe it's politically cynical for the board to do nothing about Wikipedia's gender imbalance while laudably fighting against current demographic biases in CEOs.

How many other charities can you think of who have only ever had female CEOs?

Almost none. I do not understand why this should mean that it's a problem for a charity to only ever have women leading them. Would that more charities had only women CEOs! Why not?

Check the dictionary definition of diversity.

[AndyTheGrump]

Check the dictionary definition of diversity.

Why? It is only you that is suggesting that there is any connection between the WMFs policies on gender diversity and the fact that their three latest CEOs have been female.

[Eric Corbett]

Check the dictionary definition of diversity.

Why? It is only you that is suggesting that there is any connection between the WMFs policies on gender diversity and the fact that their three latest CEOs have been female.

Why check the dictionary? Surely that's obvious.

And why not consider the possibility for once in your life that not everything I say must automatically be wrong?

And let me correct you: it's not their three latest CEOs, it's all their CEOs.

[Midsize Jake]

...It is only you that is suggesting that there is any connection between the WMFs policies on gender diversity and the fact that their three latest CEOs have been female.

I was doing that myself, wasn't I? Obviously I don't know, I'm not inside these people's heads (thankfully), but the suggestion hardly seems unreasonable. It's certainly what I would do, if I were them.

To me, the real issue is whether or not it's something Wikipedians (and other concerned parties) should object to. Personally, I wouldn't (and don't) object to it at all, but that's just me.

[The Adversary]

I have no sympathy with the position that having three women serve as CEOs in succession is somehow problematic. But, again, maybe I'm missing some subtext that you're trying to get at. Like, maybe it's politically cynical for the board to do nothing about Wikipedia's gender imbalance while laudably fighting against current demographic biases in CEOs.

How many other charities can you think of who have only ever had female CEOs?

Quite a few, in fact, but all up in troll country, or its neighbours.
Whenever I watch British or US gender policies, I feel I am on a time journey....back in time, some 20, 30, 40 years.

Having said that, the only one of the three I had some hope to was Lila. And we know how that went.
The other two are 100% "Apparatchik (T-H-L)"

But, as the expression goes: fish rot from the head down.

Jimbo started with hiring incompetent bootlickers, and see where that has got us: a bureaucracy that works for the good of ...the bureaucracy.
(Sigh, I guess being an incompetent bootlicker should also be an equal opportunity job....)

[AndyTheGrump]

...
And why not consider the possibility for once in your life that not everything I say must automatically be wrong?
...

How about you considering that you might be? Either provide some evidence to back up your claim, or accept that not everyone is obliged to take your unverifiable suppositions as some sort of proof. Because until evidence is presented, I see no reason to draw conclusions one way or another.

[Bezdomni]

I would ask that you please consider exhibit B. I did the houseboats of Sausalito with my students today, on good suggestions from Oxford. The "trainees" didn't really know Oakland. As I soon as I mentioned "There is no there, there." I knew it was pointless to carry on beyond Ishmael... beyond the vague sense of hominess that surrounds here/there & even "over" in (American) English. (come on over = come on round, perhaps, for those of the Isles) ^^ Maybe next week I'll attack the phrase as dogma...

ed.: direct link to Renée announcing Ms. Mouhahahr's new position on the board of the Digital Public Library of America. NB: the singular for "America", that small town re-insurance/accounting concern...

[Poetlister]

To answer the original question, without evidence that other candidates for the CEO position were discounted due to their gender there is no way to be sure. Sample size too small...

Is it a sample size or a population size? Was there a CEO before 2007?

Yes, it's a sample. This is a common cause of confusion. See this link.

[iii]

To answer the original question, without evidence that other candidates for the CEO position were discounted due to their gender there is no way to be sure. Sample size too small...

Is it a sample size or a population size? Was there a CEO before 2007?

Yes, it's a sample. This is a common cause of confusion. See this link.

If you treated the CEOs of WMF as a population, there would be no gender imbalance because there are only women in the population.

[Eric Corbett]

To answer the original question, without evidence that other candidates for the CEO position were discounted due to their gender there is no way to be sure. Sample size too small...

Is it a sample size or a population size? Was there a CEO before 2007?

Yes, it's a sample. This is a common cause of confusion. See this link.

If we were indeed sampling you might have a point. But as we aren't, you don't.

[Eric Corbett]

To answer the original question, without evidence that other candidates for the CEO position were discounted due to their gender there is no way to be sure. Sample size too small...

Is it a sample size or a population size? Was there a CEO before 2007?

Yes, it's a sample. This is a common cause of confusion. See this link.

If you treated the CEOs of WMF as a population, there would be no gender imbalance because there are only women in the population.

That's true in a sense, depending on what you mean by gender imbalance. My own view would be to expect that the genders of WMF CEOs would reflect the gender balance of the population at large. Which it doesn't.

[AndyTheGrump]

The thing is, there could be multiple possible reasons why the three CEOs were all female. Just off the top of my head:

(a) Per Eric, it was intentional, as part of some supposed (and misnamed) 'gender diversity' program. They only ever intended to recruit women.
(b) The job was advertised in such a way that women were more likely to apply. This need not necessarily have been intentional, though it could have been.
(c) The WMF had no specific preference, but in each case, the best-qualified candidate that actually applied for the the job was female, and they were chosen on merit. In other words, coincidence.
(d) The candidates weren't chosen on merit, but because Jimbo likes working with attractive women. Personally, I think this unlikely, but can't rule it out entirely.

I'm sure there are other possible explanations, but given lack of supporting evidence, it seems to me that (c) is the nearest thing to a null hypothesis here, and thus is the one that needs to be disproven. Of course, this being a Wikipedia criticism forum, it is the least satisfactory for WMF-bashing, but personally I think that there are quite enough things they can be criticised for based on actual verifiable evidence, and that assuming the worst automatically is a poor methodology if you want to be taken seriously.

[iii]

To answer the original question, without evidence that other candidates for the CEO position were discounted due to their gender there is no way to be sure. Sample size too small...

Is it a sample size or a population size? Was there a CEO before 2007?

Yes, it's a sample. This is a common cause of confusion. See this link.

If you treated the CEOs of WMF as a population, there would be no gender imbalance because there are only women in the population.

That's true in a sense, depending on what you mean by gender imbalance. My own view would be to expect that the genders of WMF CEOs would reflect the gender balance of the population at large. Which it doesn't.

Actually, this is not a demonstration that this is unrepresentative of the population at large. A sample size of three being one gender is not particularly unusual. Even choosing perfectly randomly, you would expect this to happen a little over 12.5% of the time.

Of course, the choice of CEOs is not random, but you haven't made a case why it would be a good idea for the non-random selection function to disfavor three woman being chosen.

In short, I see both a poor command of statistics as well as a poorly explained desire for fewer women CEOs at the WMF.

[Dysklyver]

Isn't the 100% female WMF leadership supposed to make up for the 100% male presence of Jimmy?



Maybe Jimmy's idea of female representation was a little off at first...

[Eric Corbett]

To answer the original question, without evidence that other candidates for the CEO position were discounted due to their gender there is no way to be sure. Sample size too small...

Is it a sample size or a population size? Was there a CEO before 2007?

Yes, it's a sample. This is a common cause of confusion. See this link.

If you treated the CEOs of WMF as a population, there would be no gender imbalance because there are only women in the population.

That's true in a sense, depending on what you mean by gender imbalance. My own view would be to expect that the genders of WMF CEOs would reflect the gender balance of the population at large. Which it doesn't.

Actually, this is not a demonstration that this is unrepresentative of the population at large. A sample size of three being one gender is not particularly unusual. Even choosing perfectly randomly, you would expect this to happen a little over 12.5% of the time.

Of course, the choice of CEOs is not random, but you haven't made a case why it would be a good idea for the non-random selection function to disfavor three woman being chosen.

In short, I see both a poor command of statistics as well as a poorly explained desire for fewer women CEOs at the WMF.

Then you see what's not there, but that's really no surprise. And how many times do I have to say this is not a sample, it's the entire population of WMF CEOs.

That the selection process is not random is precisely my point, so your schoolboy classical probability calculation has very little bearing on the issue. But to pursue it, the odds of four consecutive female CEOs would obviously be half of what it is now, i.e. a little over 6%. Would you still consider that a reasonable representation of the population at large? Why would anyone be concerned about the gender disparity of editors reflecting (or not) the population at large, but not that of WMF CEOs?

And finally, please stop putting words in my mouth. I have said nothing about what I desire in terms of women CEOs, so stop with your straw men.

[Poetlister]

Let's take a simple example. I take a brand new coin and toss it three times. Each time it lands tails. Ah, you say, the entire universe of tosses of this coin consists of three tails so the probability of getting a tail must be exactly 100% with no room for uncertainty.

[Eric Corbett]

Let's take a simple example. I take a brand new coin and toss it three times. Each time it lands tails. Ah, you say, the entire universe of tosses of this coin consists of three tails so the probability of getting a tail must be exactly 100% with no room for uncertainty.

I say no such thing. That three tails have been tossed obviously doesn't affect the probability of a fourth toss also being tails, which remains at 50% of course, regardless of how many prior tails have been tossed.

The issue is to do with past expectation, not prediction. When the WMF was set up, what were the odds of all of its CEOs being female? As was shown above, even using classical probability theory there's only a 12.5% chance of that happening. You may consider the actual outcome to be within the bounds of experimental error or sampling noise but I do not. I don't think there's really anything else to say on the matter, which as far as I'm concerned is now closed.

[Eric Corbett]

Isn't the 100% female WMF leadership supposed to make up for the 100% male presence of Jimmy?



Maybe Jimmy's idea of female representation was a little off at first...

Perhaps some people are unaware of Wikipedia's beginnings in the soft porn industry with Bomis?

[Just passing by]

I think they've all been women for much the same reason that Britain has all-female shortlists for MPs, it's because they have to be seen to be doing something even if it risks not choosing the best person for the job.

[Eric Corbett]

I think they've all been women for much the same reason that Britain has all-female shortlists for MPs, it's because they have to be seen to be doing something even if it risks not choosing the best person for the job.

I think you're probably right. "Something must be done to increase the number of females participating in Wikipedia, and this is something."

[AndyTheGrump]

Ok, so here's a question for people more familiar with the early history of the WMF than me. Did they have a 'gender diversity' program when Gardner was appointed CEO in 2007?

[Randy from Boise]

I have no sympathy with the position that having three women serve as CEOs in succession is somehow problematic. But, again, maybe I'm missing some subtext that you're trying to get at. Like, maybe it's politically cynical for the board to do nothing about Wikipedia's gender imbalance while laudably fighting against current demographic biases in CEOs.

How many other charities can you think of who have only ever had female CEOs?

Almost none. I do not understand why this should mean that it's a problem for a charity to only ever have women leading them. Would that more charities had only women CEOs! Why not?

Check the dictionary definition of diversity.

Are you aware of the concept of small sample size?

Flip a coin 3 times. Odds are 1-in-8 that it will come up heads three times in a row. That doesn't mean that it will always will come up heads or that the flipper is biased towards generating a heads outcome.

Like I say, get back to us if WMF has eight female EDs in a row and we can discuss whether that is a bad thing or not.

RfB

Let's take a simple example. I take a brand new coin and toss it three times. Each time it lands tails. Ah, you say, the entire universe of tosses of this coin consists of three tails so the probability of getting a tail must be exactly 100% with no room for uncertainty.

I say no such thing. That three tails have been tossed obviously doesn't affect the probability of a fourth toss also being tails, which remains at 50% of course, regardless of how many prior tails have been tossed.

The issue is to do with past expectation, not prediction. When the WMF was set up, what were the odds of all of its CEOs being female? As was shown above, even using classical probability theory there's only a 12.5% chance of that happening. You may consider the actual outcome to be within the bounds of experimental error or sampling noise but I do not. I don't think there's really anything else to say on the matter, which as far as I'm concerned is now closed.

P.S. Oops, sorry, you mention the 12.5% chance of this happening in probability theory above. My bad. And your bad for starting this thread about such a NORMAL outcome.

[Ming]

Carly Fiorina did nothing at all towards making the engineering culture at HP anything but the mostly-male place it always was, and she was less isolated from her employees than WMF is from the editorship-- after all, she could set hiring goals. At any rate ideological diversity is manifestly more of a problem in WP.

[Dysklyver]

Ok, so here's a question for people more familiar with the early history of the WMF than me. Did they have a 'gender diversity' program when Gardner was appointed CEO in 2007?

My understanding is that the WMF only joined the gender diversity bandwagon in 2011, after some researchers found that 93% of Wikipedians were white males and they needed to do some PR to deal with it.

Before that they only had the normal token diversity policies.

[Poetlister]

The issue is to do with past expectation, not prediction. When the WMF was set up, what were the odds of all of its CEOs being female? As was shown above, even using classical probability theory there's only a 12.5% chance of that happening. You may consider the actual outcome to be within the bounds of experimental error or sampling noise but I do not. I don't think there's really anything else to say on the matter, which as far as I'm concerned is now closed.

The null hypothesis is that on each occasion there was about a 50-50 chance that a female would be chosen for the role. The alternative hypothesis being advanced is that there was a much higher chance that a female would be chosen for the role. This alternative is not very strongly supported by the evidence available. I agree that the matter should be closed.

[Anroth]

The issue is to do with past expectation, not prediction. When the WMF was set up, what were the odds of all of its CEOs being female? As was shown above, even using classical probability theory there's only a 12.5% chance of that happening. You may consider the actual outcome to be within the bounds of experimental error or sampling noise but I do not. I don't think there's really anything else to say on the matter, which as far as I'm concerned is now closed.

The null hypothesis is that on each occasion there was about a 50-50 chance that a female would be chosen for the role. The alternative hypothesis being advanced is that there was a much higher chance that a female would be chosen for the role. This alternative is not very strongly supported by the evidence available. I agree that the matter should be closed.

50-50, what about all the other genders?

*gets coat*