WikiWomen

[EricBarbour]

I did a similar test in November 2011, and found that 86% were male and 13% were female (and the remainder were nonexistent fictional people). So it has improved a little since 2011.

Chart14.png

[thekohser]

I did a similar test in November 2011, and found that 86% were male and 13% were female (and the remainder were nonexistent fictional people). So it has improved a little since 2011.

Eric, were your articles "biographies" (as opposed to biographies of living people)? The fact that women generally only became widespread Wikipedia-notable in the past 100 years or so would say more about your 2011 test than actually shifting the skew in BLPs.

[thekohser]

Has this been published anywhere that can be linked to from inside WP?

I'll whip up an Examiner article -- how's that?

[EricBarbour]

Eric, were your articles "biographies" (as opposed to biographies of living people)?

Whups, you're right, they are living and dead, I should have noted that. If they're trying to improve the balance, shouldn't it apply to both living and dead people?

[thekohser]

Eric, were your articles "biographies" (as opposed to biographies of living people)?

Whups, you're right, they are living and dead, I should have noted that. If they're trying to improve the balance, shouldn't it apply to both living and dead people?

Sure, it should include both, but my data set from January 2011 was just BLPs, so I'm trying to be consistent.

[Poetlister]

Eric, were your articles "biographies" (as opposed to biographies of living people)?

Whups, you're right, they are living and dead, I should have noted that. If they're trying to improve the balance, shouldn't it apply to both living and dead people?

As Greg notes, it's likely that the overwhelming majority of notable people were male until quite recent times. For example, I think that if anything the inclusion of poets pre-1900 is tilted in favour of women.

[Neotarf]

Has this been published anywhere that can be linked to from inside WP?

I'll whip up an Examiner article -- how's that?

That would be awesome.

If you can manage something before the ArbCom topic-bans me from women's BLPs, I'll even try to post the link somewhere.

One thing these edit-a-thons do, especially when they're in collaboration with a museum or library, is to utilize the holdings of the library to add material to existing BLPs. I seem to remember somewhere that women's BLPs are typically shorter and have less detail than men's BLPs. Is there any way to repeat some previous study to see if the articles are getting longer, or if not, to do a study that would provide some baseline data for future studies? Also the numbers of articles: the number of women's articles is increasing but the number of men's articles is increasing as well. So if you only look at what percentage of BLPs is female as opposed to male, it doesn't take into account the increasing number of articles about men. Is there some way categories could be used to get an idea of the raw numbers? Also, is a sample of 200 large enough to be statistically significant? I suspect some of this bean-counting may have been done by someone already, but I wouldn't know where to look for it--Andreas would probably know.

One of the funding issues that comes up from time to time is the value of funding local chapters compared to grants to individuals. This would seem to provide at least anecdotal evidence that pizzas do build encyclopedias.

[thekohser]

Also, is a sample of 200 large enough to be statistically significant?

Two samples of 200, obtaining percentages of 19% and 23% is statistically significant, but at a low confidence level. The mere-chance probability of the observed difference is 0.3261.

If we upped the sample to 300 each, and obtained the same percentages, then the chance probability goes down to 0.229. Scientists would probably want us to boost each of our samples to 565 or more, assuming the same percentage outcomes, so that they could state "with 90% confidence" that the difference is real and not due to mere-chance sample error.

However, I cannot possibly be bothered to keep looking up that many biographies just to tell what would almost undoubtedly be essentially the same story.

[Neotarf]

Also, is a sample of 200 large enough to be statistically significant?

...Scientists would probably want us to boost each of our samples to 565 or more, assuming the same percentage outcomes, so that they could state "with 90% confidence" that the difference is real and not due to mere-chance sample error....

However, I cannot possibly be bothered to keep looking up that many biographies just to tell what would almost undoubtedly be essentially the same story.

It's a useful enough snapshot, even without more decimal places.

[Poetlister]

Also, is a sample of 200 large enough to be statistically significant?

Two samples of 200, obtaining percentages of 19% and 23% is statistically significant, but at a low confidence level. The mere-chance probability of the observed difference is 0.3261.

If we upped the sample to 300 each, and obtained the same percentages, then the chance probability goes down to 0.229. Scientists would probably want us to boost each of our samples to 565 or more, assuming the same percentage outcomes, so that they could state "with 90% confidence" that the difference is real and not due to mere-chance sample error.

However, I cannot possibly be bothered to keep looking up that many biographies just to tell what would almost undoubtedly be essentially the same story.

Sorry, I'm missing something here. How is "statistically significant" defined? Usually, scientists ask for 95% confidence; subatomic particle physicists ask for much higher levels.

[thekohser]

How is "statistically significant" defined?

Why don't you tell us?

[Poetlister]

How is "statistically significant" defined?

Why don't you tell us?

OK. Suppose you have a null hypothesis H0 and you do a test to see if the truth is "significantly different" from what you;d expect under H0. If the probability of getting the observed result or a greater deviation from expectation is less than a pre-defined value, you say that the result is statistically significant and you reject H0. The most widely used value is 5% and you say that the result is significant at the 5% or 95% level (according to taste). "The mere-chance probability of the observed difference is 0.3261" means that the difference would not be accepted as significant unless your pre-defined value was 33% or higher. Such a value would be unconventional.

One complication is that you have to consider what alternative hypothesis H1 is being contemplated. Say H0 is that if you toss a given coin, you will get heads 50% of the time. You toss it 10,000 times and get only 4,800 heads. If H1 is that the probability is more or less than 50%, never mind which, you would reject H0, since under H0 the probability of getting at least 200 different from 5,000 is minuscule. However, if H1 is that the probability is more than 50%, you would not reject H0 since the deviation is in the opposite direction from what would be expected under H1.

[thekohser]

Thanks for clearing that up for us. I'll go ahead with my Examiner article now.

[HRIP7]

From the Gendergap list, where I raised once more the still outstanding report on the gender split in the 2012 Editor Survey.

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/g ... 04953.html

https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/g ... 04963.html

At the end of this discussion is the query:

​
> we still do not seem to have the gender split from the 2012 editor survey.
> We have had excuses, promises and silences from the Foundation on this, but
> no data.
>
> What was the gender split in the 2012 survey? Donor money paid for this
> survey. Why is the information still not available, over two years after
> the survey ran?
>
>

Are there any results at all? Is a copy of the survey available?

--Thank you, Kathleen McCook

On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 7:12 PM, Jeremy Baron <jeremy at tuxmachine.com> wrote:

>
>
> > See [http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/the-wikipe ... -revisited
> 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? ... 65#Results
[2] http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/surveys/ (no sign of the 2012 data
dump there at the time of writing)

[thekohser]

Excellent application of light pressure, Andreas.

[EricBarbour]

And he was ignored.

Meanwhile, the pot screams at the kettle.
https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/g ... 04959.html

I must admit, I'm really fascinated by the fact that Eric Corbett is being
called "Mr. Corbett" and Carol Moore is being called "Carol Moore' in some
of these conversations.

And anyone who has spent time on this mailing list and reads interviews,
articles, surveys, blahblah with women who edit Wikipedia (not just us
"uppity types"), knows damn well that CIVILITY is one of the reasons we
have a gender gap.

So this is in fact, about the gender gap.

-Sarah

Sayeth a woman who abused Wikipedia policies, had her own Wikipedia biography written for her by a close friend (and placed under pending changes to prevent people from removing it or pointing out how non-notable she was), and was fired from the WMF after being caught gleefully advertising herself for paid editing of Wikipedia articles at the rate of $44/hour.

Meanwhile, Corbett and Moore are waved around as "guilty parties". Everyone in that sewer is guilty of something.

[mac]

Wikipedia's Gender Problem Gets a Closer Look
Stephanie Pappas, December 3, 2014, LiveScience.com link

Wikipedia has a gender problem.

The online, crowd-sourced encyclopedia is open to anyone who wants to edit it, but surveys suggest that nearly 90 percent of these volunteer "Wikipedians" are male. A 2011 editor survey by the Wikimedia Foundation pegged the number of active female editors at only 9 percent. Other surveys have found slightly different numbers, but none exceed about 15 percent female representation worldwide.

Now, researchers are delving into how that gender schism affects the content of Wikipedia, even as the Wikimedia Foundation and independent groups search for ways to get more women involved. [6 Myths About Girls and Science]

Note: I don't know where to post this, so if this is out of place, please delete or move this post.

[thekohser]

The people who throw money around to various projects decided that for three months they are going to table any financial request that does not address the gender gap.

Right on cue, a moderator of the Wikimedia discussion list suggests that regarding the problem of too few women participating on Wikipedia, "a lot of people would finger it".

[Jim]

The people who throw money around to various projects decided that for three months they are going to table any financial request that does not address the gender gap.

Right on cue, a moderator of the Wikimedia discussion list suggests that regarding the problem of too few women participating on Wikipedia, "a lot of people would finger it".

Er, what the f--- is going on here, guys?

For everyone here: I've asked our Grantmaking team to comment and clarify the details of this plan.

The purple one has climbed a bit in my estimation with certain recent events - but she has a mountain of crazy still to address.

It's daunting, for anyone.

[EricBarbour]

Right on cue, a moderator of the Wikimedia discussion list suggests that regarding the problem of too few women participating on Wikipedia, "a lot of people would finger it".

That's probably the cleverest thing Mr. Hair has ever written. Let him bask in its juices.

[thekohser]

I may have discovered a "victory" for the WikiWomen -- a case where a Wikipedia article exists about a woman less noteworthy (by traditional measures) than her husband, who lacks his own Wikipedia biography.

I'm talking about Tyonajanegen (T-H-L) and her husband, Han Yerry (Tewahangarahken).

Are there other examples of this?

[HRIP7]

Note https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants: ... a/Midpoint

and related Gendergap post: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/g ... 05389.html

[...] I’ve spoken with only a few women who don’t like the term “gender gap” and who don’t see a lack of women participating as a problem in and of itself. Also, I’ve found it difficult to recruit men to participate. I would love to interview trolls too, but again—no takers yet.

I’ll be publishing my final IEG report on April 1. If my participants grant permission, I’ll share the anonymized, redacted transcripts as well as the survey results and 9 months of Gendergap mailing list data my students and I have coded and analyzed.

An excerpt from a note (currently in press) I’ve written with Ingrid Erickson (Rutgers) re: early findings:

Wikipedia, perhaps the most successful large-scale, online collaboration in the world, is a storied space of democratic values and meritocracy in action—as many within the CHI and CSCW communities have extensively detailed [e.g.,13,18,19,22,23,24]. Yet underneath its idealized veneer, Wikipedia in practice proves to have a notable gender gap. Unlike user distribution reports on social media platforms, which trend more toward representative parity or even a greater number of female users [7], surveys of Wikipedia users indicate the overwhelming majority of contributors are male [14]. Both the popular media [e.g., 9,21,27] and scholars [e.g., 1,6,20] have begun to explore Wikipedia’s participation disparities, raising questions about editor recruitment and retention, content coverage and bias, and the tension between diversity and territoriality [10].

Recently, Jimmy Wales, co-founder of Wikipedia, admitted that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) has “completely failed” [29] to meet its goal of increasing the number of female participants to 25% by 2015. In February 2011 in response to an article published in The New York Times [5], then Executive Director of WMF, Sue Gardner, asked her Deputy Director Erik Möller to create the Gendergap mailing list, a publicly archived listserv “provided by the Wikimedia Foundation as a communication tool to collectively address the realities of the gender gap” [28]. In September 2014, a male Wikipedian posted the following message to the list: “I think there should be a separate site for the gender gap effort […] where women and men interested in narrowing the gender gap and documenting the existing problems can exchange views in an atmosphere undisturbed by men pretending to be women, men opposed to narrowing the gender gap, men arguing that it's not really proven that the gender gap is a problem.” Even within a dedicated listserv, the topic of gender parity proves to be volatile. Lam et al.[20] confirm this social complexity, noting a “culture that may be resistant to female participation” [20:9].

However, Wikipedia’s gender gap is typically framed as a “woman problem” [8]. It has been attributed to women’s lack of discretionary time [6], sensitivity to conflict and criticism [6], desire to be more social [21], and hesitancy to learn technical skills such as the Wiki mark-up language [11]. In August 2014, Wikimedia Deutschland published a diversity report indicating that, although the picture is complex, “lack of time, technical usability barriers (e.g. navigation, editability), and a variety of sociocultural and communication issues (style of communication, working atmosphere) can […] definitely be identified as reasons for low female participation in Wikipedia” [4].

Despite the perception of the gender gap as a “woman problem,” women do actively contribute to different language Wikipedias across the world. Women lead local chapters, sustain sister projects, and work for and chair the WMF. Women who have similar edit counts to men are more likely to become administrators [21] and make more sizeable revisions [1] than men do. This note reports early findings that suggest there is something to be learned about the possible cause(s) and consequences of Wikipedia’s gender gap by looking more closely at the experiences of women actively engaged in the community. What are their experiences like? What challenges do they face? How do they persevere? We posit that many women Wikipedians engage in a form of ‘emotion work’ [15], also known as emotional labor, that allows them to maintain their participation even as the circumstances in which they engage prove challenging, if not caustic.

This project is still ongoing; results due in April.

[thekohser]

Note https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants: ... a/Midpoint

It seems unprofessional to me, to say "I", "I", "I", and "me", "me", "me" throughout a formal report, but then not sign it with your name or disclose your name on your User page.

[HRIP7]

Note https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants: ... a/Midpoint

It seems unprofessional to me, to say "I", "I", "I", and "me", "me", "me" throughout a formal report, but then not sign it with your name or disclose your name on your User page.

Bof, probably an oversight. She does disclose her name on her WP user page, as well as in the Gendergap post of course.

I think it's an interesting project.

[DanMurphy]

I may have discovered a "victory" for the WikiWomen -- a case where a Wikipedia article exists about a woman less noteworthy (by traditional measures) than her husband, who lacks his own Wikipedia biography.

I'm talking about Tyonajanegen (T-H-L) and her husband, Han Yerry (Tewahangarahken).

Are there other examples of this?

Wikipedia:

Oneida leader.

You will find many instances of distortions and outright falsehoods in the articles written by Wikipedia enthusiasts to "balance" its coverage of gender and many other topics. It is the Wikipedia way.

The article was written by one "Gobnobo" in 2010 and has been barely touched since. "Gobonobo" has the following displayed on its user page.

[thekohser]

Note https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants: ... a/Midpoint

It seems unprofessional to me, to say "I", "I", "I", and "me", "me", "me" throughout a formal report, but then not sign it with your name or disclose your name on your User page.

Bof, probably an oversight. She does disclose her name on her WP user page, as well as in the Gendergap post of course.

I think it's an interesting project.

I think it's an interesting project, too. That's why I talked with Menking for over an hour and exchanged numerous detailed e-mails with her. I wish her luck.

[Randy from Boise]

Request for help from the community

I've struggled to find Wikipedians who are willing to talk to me and who 1) believe the gender gap doesn't exist 2) believe the gender gap exists but isn't a problem 3) have been accused of being misogynistic or sexist 4) are trolls. I could use help from the community in this area.

Translation: "I didn't use random sampling and inferences drawn about the general population of Wikipedians from my study are therefore stuffed."

RfB




Addenda: Lest I be accused of being too harsh, here is the project outline page: linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants: ... _Wikipedia[/link]

Here is the survey population detailed according to that document

The data may include but not be limited to:
* Stories of active editors who self-identify as women (collected via semi-structured interviews conducted in person, or via VOIP/video services such as Skype or Google Hangout);
* Interviews with Wikipedians (including those who represent non-English communities) who have been planning and hosting editing events to address the gender gap;
* Small focus groups with different genders who participate in events such as meet-ups, edit-a-thons, Wikimania, etc.;
* Observations of co-located editing and mentoring events designed to address the gender gap--both those sponsored by Wikipedia and those not--such as meet-ups, workshops, and edit-a-thons;
* Participation in and observations of non co-located (e.g., online, virtual) editing and mentoring events designed to address the gender gap;
* An online survey designed specifically with the gender gap in mind;
* Longitudinal measures of the success (e.g., the ability to attract and retain new editors who self-identify as women; lasting content created by new editors who self-identify as women; user contribution tracking) of co-located and non co-located events;
* Content analysis of internal documents (e.g., project pages, talk pages, gender gap mailing list archives, etc.) regarding the gender gap and efforts to address it.

In other words, this is to be a collection of anecdotal evidence of arbitrarily selected self-identified women (who, how?), and by similar anecdotal evidence generated from focus groups on the gender gap topic voluntarily participated in by a motivated subset of that subset of Wikipedians who attend official WMF or WM-user group events, as well as recipients of an online survey (distributed to whom, how?).

Oh, and a second unrelated project tagged on: analysis of new editors self-identified as women and tracking of their content contributions (presumably measured against some sort of control group). Oh, and a third project tagged on, content analysis of project pages, talk pages, and the archive of the gender gap mailing list itself.

The second of thes projects, done properly by a group of people who actually understand statistics, would be useful. What we have here are inevitably self-reinforcing anecdotes of WMF gender gap activists. Which is fine for what it is, but we already know what they are going to say, do we not?

RfB

[Vigilant]

Request for help from the community

I've struggled to find Wikipedians who are willing to talk to me and who 1) believe the gender gap doesn't exist 2) believe the gender gap exists but isn't a problem 3) have been accused of being misogynistic or sexist 4) are trolls. I could use help from the community in this area.

Translation: "I didn't use random sampling and inferences drawn about the general population of Wikipedians from my study are therefore stuffed."

RfB




Addenda: Lest I be accused of being too harsh, here is the project outline page: linkhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants: ... _Wikipedia[/link]

Here is the survey population detailed according to that document

The data may include but not be limited to:
* Stories of active editors who self-identify as women (collected via semi-structured interviews conducted in person, or via VOIP/video services such as Skype or Google Hangout);
* Interviews with Wikipedians (including those who represent non-English communities) who have been planning and hosting editing events to address the gender gap;
* Small focus groups with different genders who participate in events such as meet-ups, edit-a-thons, Wikimania, etc.;
* Observations of co-located editing and mentoring events designed to address the gender gap--both those sponsored by Wikipedia and those not--such as meet-ups, workshops, and edit-a-thons;
* Participation in and observations of non co-located (e.g., online, virtual) editing and mentoring events designed to address the gender gap;
* An online survey designed specifically with the gender gap in mind;
* Longitudinal measures of the success (e.g., the ability to attract and retain new editors who self-identify as women; lasting content created by new editors who self-identify as women; user contribution tracking) of co-located and non co-located events;
* Content analysis of internal documents (e.g., project pages, talk pages, gender gap mailing list archives, etc.) regarding the gender gap and efforts to address it.

In other words, this is to be a collection of anecdotal evidence of arbitrarily selected self-identified women (who, how?), and by similar anecdotal evidence generated from focus groups on the gender gap topic voluntarily participated in by a motivated subset of that subset of Wikipedians who attend official WMF or WM-user group events, as well as recipients of an online survey (distributed to whom, how?).

Oh, and a second unrelated project tagged on: analysis of new editors self-identified as women and tracking of their content contributions (presumably measured against some sort of control group). Oh, and a third project tagged on, content analysis of project pages, talk pages, and the archive of the gender gap mailing list itself.

The second of thes projects, done properly by a group of people who actually understand statistics, would be useful. What we have here are inevitably self-reinforcing anecdotes of WMF gender gap activists. Which is fine for what it is, but we already know what they are going to say, do we not?

RfB

How is this really different from the EEML?

[JCM]

FWIW, there actually are a rather remarkable number of biographical dictionaries out there pretty much devoted exclusively to women. These include dictionaries on female scientists, anthropologists, artists, and others, as well as general "women in history" dictionaries. Anytime there is interest in a subject, we can be sure some writers out there will generate books about it.

[eppur si muove]

Translation: "I didn't use random sampling and inferences drawn about the general population of Wikipedians from my study are therefore stuffed."

You don't understand qualitative research methodology do you?

Quantitative research can tell you a lot about correlations but is not very good at finding explanations of people's thinking. Qualitative allows people to give their explanations. You don't need a representative sample for it. What you need instead is sufficient number of people covering each of a range of outlooks etc. that you can then get a good idea of how people with those outlooks think.

If you're carrying out qualitative research of Wikipedians, you don't need 10 times (or what ever it is) as many men as women, so many times as many non-admins as admins, so many times as many admins as Arbs etc. You need sufficient numbers of each category to get a broad range of views for each.

Qualitative researchers talk about reaching "saturation" when analysing more interviews etc. doesn't produce radically new data. If you recruited your research subjects in proportion to their numbers on Wikipedia, you would expect to reach saturation with regards to men a lot earlier than for women and for admins and non-admins a hell of a lot earlier than for Arbs. Recruiting subjects in a manner that is not statistically representative of the population allows qualitative researchers to be much more efficient in carrying out a time-intensive process and also stops them from wasting the time of research participants. Interviewing hundreds of extra non-admins so that you can get sufficient arbs is not a good use of their time.

[Randy from Boise]

FWIW, there actually are a rather remarkable number of biographical dictionaries out there pretty much devoted exclusively to women. These include dictionaries on female scientists, anthropologists, artists, and others, as well as general "women in history" dictionaries. Anytime there is interest in a subject, we can be sure some writers out there will generate books about it.

To this point: I'm just getting ready to drop coin on a two volume "Jewish Women in America" biographical dictionary from Hamilton Books, cheap.

RfB

[Randy from Boise]

Translation: "I didn't use random sampling and inferences drawn about the general population of Wikipedians from my study are therefore stuffed."

You don't understand qualitative research methodology do you?

Quantitative research can tell you a lot about correlations but is not very good at finding explanations of people's thinking. Qualitative allows people to give their explanations. You don't need a representative sample for it. What you need instead is sufficient number of people covering each of a range of outlooks etc. that you can then get a good idea of how people with those outlooks think.

If you're carrying out qualitative research of Wikipedians, you don't need 10 times (or what ever it is) as many men as women, so many times as many non-admins as admins, so many times as many admins as Arbs etc. You need sufficient numbers of each category to get a broad range of views for each.

Qualitative researchers talk about reaching "saturation" when analysing more interviews etc. doesn't produce radically new data. If you recruited your research subjects in proportion to their numbers on Wikipedia, you would expect to reach saturation with regards to men a lot earlier than for women and for admins and non-admins a hell of a lot earlier than for Arbs. Recruiting subjects in a manner that is not statistically representative of the population allows qualitative researchers to be much more efficient in carrying out a time-intensive process and also stops them from wasting the time of research participants. Interviewing hundreds of extra non-admins so that you can get sufficient arbs is not a good use of their time.

I've got nothing against the technique of interviewing to generate "qualitative" (anecdotal) information. The question is: who is being asked what by whom?

If we start by exclusively targeting a small, non-representative subset of Wikipedians (female participants in gender-related focus groups at WMF conventions), phrasing the interview in a leading manner, the result is — GIGO.

The interviewer goes so far as to indicate they "need help from the community" finding "trolls" and critics of predetermined axioms to participate in the interview process...

It doesn't take a weatherman to know which way the wind blows, as Bobby Dylan would say...

Meatball sociology, maybe. Serious statistics? Not.

RfB

[mac]

The interviewer goes so far as to indicate they "need help from the community" finding "trolls" and critics of predetermined axioms to participate in the interview process...

If she can't find trolls on Wikipedia then she is not looking.

Oh I see:

Request for help from the community

I've struggled to find Wikipedians who are willing to talk to me and who 1) believe the gender gap doesn't exist 2) believe the gender gap exists but isn't a problem 3) have been accused of being misogynistic or sexist 4) are trolls. I could use help from the community in this area.

I can't be sure, but it seems that she might have left out a word there. Is she looking for people who do believe the gender gap exists and that it is a problem, who have not been accused of being misogynistic or sexist (accused of?), and who are not trolls?

Maybe I have my finger on the wrong pulse...

PS: Wait a minute, Mssemantics??
(edited, with apologies)

[HRIP7]

Request for help from the community

I've struggled to find Wikipedians who are willing to talk to me and who 1) believe the gender gap doesn't exist 2) believe the gender gap exists but isn't a problem 3) have been accused of being misogynistic or sexist 4) are trolls. I could use help from the community in this area.

I can't be sure, but it seems that she might have left out a word there. Is she looking for people who do believe the gender gap exists and that it is a problem, who have not been accused of being misogynistic or sexist (accused of?), and who are not trolls?

As I read it, she is looking for four kinds of people to talk to:

1) people who believe the gender gap doesn't exist
2) people who believe the gender gap exists but isn't a problem
3) people who have been accused of being misogynistic or sexist
4) people who are trolls

[Randy from Boise]

Request for help from the community

I've struggled to find Wikipedians who are willing to talk to me and who 1) believe the gender gap doesn't exist 2) believe the gender gap exists but isn't a problem 3) have been accused of being misogynistic or sexist 4) are trolls. I could use help from the community in this area.

I can't be sure, but it seems that she might have left out a word there. Is she looking for people who do believe the gender gap exists and that it is a problem, who have not been accused of being misogynistic or sexist (accused of?), and who are not trolls?

As I read it, she is looking for four kinds of people to talk to:

1) people who believe the gender gap doesn't exist
2) people who believe the gender gap exists but isn't a problem
3) people who have been accused of being misogynistic or sexist
4) people who are trolls

As opposed to conducting a random survey and interviews in the first place and then drawing applicable conclusions from that. Y'know, drawing inferences about a population from a scientific random sample and stuff.

This survey has "second tier undergraduate sociology project" written all over it... What WMF needs to do is stop spending $8500 on amateur hour horseshit like this and hire a couple VERY SERIOUS statistics people for ten or fifteen times that amount to actually study the Gender Gap and its dynamics for a year...

RfB

[thekohser]

As opposed to conducting a random survey and interviews in the first place and then drawing applicable conclusions from that. Y'know, drawing inferences about a population from a scientific random sample and stuff.

Tim, let us know how you'd do that for $8,000.

[HRIP7]

Lightbreather is asking Wales for his take on her women's project.

Your take on a women-only project[edit]

I would love to get your feedback on the idea of a women-only project. And by project, I don't mean a separate site like Wikipedia or Commons. I mean a WikiProject just for women.

I proposed such a space - WikiProject Women - on January 6 at the IdeaLab. The ensuing caterwauling didn't surprise me - the GGTF ArbCom was only recently closed, and the Gamergate ArbCom was underway - but it is nonetheless disturbing. And I'm continuing to take flak for having the chutzpah to pursue this idea.

One of the things that came out of the discussion is that the German Wikipedia apparently has or had something like a Stammtisch in a user's space. Since the proposal of a women-only project was so outrageous to so many respondents, I decided to try a Kaffeeklatsch area in my user space. This survived a lengthy MfD, in which LuisV (WMF) said the space does not violate the WMF non discrimination policy. Yesterday, I created a redirect,[40] and today a shortcut,[41] to the klatsch page, and this, too, has been called up for deletion,[42] and I've been accused of canvassing[43] because I invited women's projects[44][45][46][47][48][49][50] to participate in the discussion. To atone (although I don't believe my invitations were contrary to WP:CANVASS), I have also put a notice on the Men's right movement talk page.[51]

I would like to close by saying that my efforts to create a women-only space is done in good faith in an effort to help close Wikipedia's gender gap, although ironically, the community's lack of support must be looked upon by outsiders as a good reason to keep away. (I would have loved such a refuge when I first started editing.)

Thoughts, please? Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply by Jimbo Wales[edit]

Comments by others[edit]
[3,500 words of bickering, and counting ...]

Any bets what the final tally of words will be—

1. in the "Reply by Jimbo Wales" section?
2. in the "Comments by others" section?

[JCM]

Lightbreather is asking Wales for his take on her women's project.

Your take on a women-only project[edit]

I would love to get your feedback on the idea of a women-only project. And by project, I don't mean a separate site like Wikipedia or Commons. I mean a WikiProject just for women.

I proposed such a space - WikiProject Women - on January 6 at the IdeaLab. The ensuing caterwauling didn't surprise me - the GGTF ArbCom was only recently closed, and the Gamergate ArbCom was underway - but it is nonetheless disturbing. And I'm continuing to take flak for having the chutzpah to pursue this idea.

One of the things that came out of the discussion is that the German Wikipedia apparently has or had something like a Stammtisch in a user's space. Since the proposal of a women-only project was so outrageous to so many respondents, I decided to try a Kaffeeklatsch area in my user space. This survived a lengthy MfD, in which LuisV (WMF) said the space does not violate the WMF non discrimination policy. Yesterday, I created a redirect,[40] and today a shortcut,[41] to the klatsch page, and this, too, has been called up for deletion,[42] and I've been accused of canvassing[43] because I invited women's projects[44][45][46][47][48][49][50] to participate in the discussion. To atone (although I don't believe my invitations were contrary to WP:CANVASS), I have also put a notice on the Men's right movement talk page.[51]

I would like to close by saying that my efforts to create a women-only space is done in good faith in an effort to help close Wikipedia's gender gap, although ironically, the community's lack of support must be looked upon by outsiders as a good reason to keep away. (I would have loved such a refuge when I first started editing.)

Thoughts, please? Lightbreather (talk) 17:36, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Reply by Jimbo Wales[edit]

Comments by others[edit]
[3,500 words of bickering, and counting ...]

Any bets what the final tally of words will be—

1. in the "Reply by Jimbo Wales" section?
2. in the "Comments by others" section?

:In the former, few if any - in the latter, too damn many. And I have to think it will ultimately wind up being of no use to the project whatsoever, and just provide another "much ado about nothing" thread on Jimbo's talk page for the dramahmongers (which, unfortunately, sometimes includes me) to soak up bandwidth with.

[Randy from Boise]

As opposed to conducting a random survey and interviews in the first place and then drawing applicable conclusions from that. Y'know, drawing inferences about a population from a scientific random sample and stuff.

Tim, let us know how you'd do that for $8,000.

I work cheap. ;-)

You're not following my point. This project is worthless or at best a collection of anecdotal evidence detailing the views of a subset of Gender Gap activists. A really serious study to do the main part of what this study purports to do would involve more than one researcher working over a long period of time and would come with a tab more like $80,000 than $8,000.

RfB

[thekohser]

A little humor from the Twittersphere:

[EricBarbour]