This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Just a note that this topic was discussed thoroughly with a variety of opinions at the Wikimedia Foundation Gender Gap email list in March of 2011. Some people thought it was fine, other that Wikipedia just needs a male wikipe-tan as well. Others thought the most offensive ones should be removed. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:32, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Taylor Ulhrich
I have been looking for the contact details of this researcher for a while. Her comments here left me with a couple of questions. I would be grateful if anyone could point her to my talk page/email link, or point me to her contact details. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 17:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC).
WikiWand
Given that design is cited as one of the many reasons for the gender gap, I thought people here might be interested in WikiWand. It's a browser add-on that changes the design of Wikipedia articles, or you can use it by going to their website.
The navigation panel is a nice touch; too often the contents box of a Wikipedia article gets in the way of the text, or the image formatting. It doesn't work as well for the "colors" article, as people are more likely to want to skim and scan a list-type article quickly in order to see if it contains the information they are looking for. I had occasion to consult that article a few weeks ago looking for the code for a font color, and the Wikipedia is clearly superior for that purpose.
The gender-based arguments for design choices I am less impressed with. Unless there is some clear study cited, too often these claims are just an excuse to reinforce negative stereotypes of women. How many times do you see "gender gap" used as a stand-in for "stupid user", as an excuse to dumb down the content. Sure there are stupid women, not to mention women who pretend to be stupid so people will like them, as well as men who are stupid. Have you ever watched a group of PhD's standing around a stalled car in the faculty parking lot? Expertise in one subject area does not guarantee competence in another. When it comes to user expectations, I suspect that age has a larger influence than gender. —Neotarf (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It seems self-evident that if Wikipedia were to look nicer, we'd have more women interested in us, and I think it would increase women editors if we had easy ways to make our articles look good. Not only women, it would attract lots of other people too. The point is that the current lack of design is off-putting. SlimVirgin(talk) 18:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Is there a way to edit article sections from that interface? I can see an edit link for the whole article under the WikiWand menu, that takes you to the standard Wikipedia editor... --GRuban (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
That's the link, you have to exit to Wikipedia, which they make very easy to do. —Neotarf (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Format is important, sure, but "look nicer" is a fairly nebulous goal. This is about "branding", what you want something to convey by looking at the appearance. Think of the cover of a dead-tree book. It's pretty easy to tell genre at a glance. You don't have to read all the titles on a bookcase to pick out at a glance which is a classic, and which is a Gothic romance. Architectural Digest has one look and feel, Wired has another. So what is Wikipedia's niche? For one, Wikipedia has a unique educational mission. So should it look like a coffee table book with glossy pictures and bland text? I hope not. You want to bring people in sure, but then eventually inoculate them with your values, like WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Maybe it should look more like a museum, say, the Smithsonian? Or more like a library, say, Library of Congress (this is the history section, which I really like). Or a university (here's Harvard), or other educational institution (government education agency). IMO it is most like Digital archive a repository of knowledge, and should combine readability with ease of use. The best look is one that you don't notice, because it immediately facilitates your task. —Neotarf (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I disagree. The best look is the one that makes you say "Wow! I want to read, write and taste this, and I need to know the name of that colour for my bedroom wall." A good design pulls you in. Wikipedia looks dull. It's hard to read (the lines are too long, for one thing) and almost impossible to make look good. People read it in spite of the design, not because of it. SlimVirgin(talk) 19:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It depends on what you want it for. Do you want an Experience or do you need to look up some factual detail. If you solve the first problem without considering the second, you have just forgotten your mission. Which IMHO is the problem of both the Visual Editor Media Viewer oops and WikiWand. If you forget your mission, you will lose people. The good news is that, even though I have VE MV oops again turned off, and was really unhappy about losing some of those features when I disabled it, I have started to see some improvements in the old image functions. —Neotarf (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC) The remarks were meant to be about Media viewer, but apparently my experience with VE was so harrowing that it has damaged my ability to process anything that comes out of the Development team. —Neotarf (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It doesn't have to be either or. We can have the Experience while looking up the factual detail. I've been around these discussions for years, with people telling us we had to use tiny thumbnail images, that they always had to go on the top right, that we can't have columns or shorter lines. It's killing us. We need fresh eyes, good design. I just wish the Foundation wouldn't put so many of its eggs in the big baskets (Visual Editor, Flow), because it means the more obvious things are perhaps being overlooked. Speed is another issue – pages are so slow to load. SlimVirgin(talk) 20:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Good old replag. It can really be a barrier in developing areas. At least with some email providers there are options to go to a slower html version, but can you load a WP page without the images? The problem with the Foundation is that they don't seem to actually edit themselves, so they don't know when they have broken the functionality. The other problem is the WMF doesn't seem to understand the importance of first impressions--if people can't use it the first time, they're not going to come back, no matter how purty it is. Do you think I will have any reason to go back to WikiWand? Been and done. —Neotarf (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
It's nice except the font is horribly jaggy. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC).
More WikiWand/gender gap (arbitrary break)
I'm interested in the concept that design is responsible for the gender gap. I have seen no evidence for this, can you point me to it?
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC).
Sue. Number 1. There is no comparison with men--who knows, maybe men find it equally or even more off-putting than women. —Neotarf (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
That blog post was fine as a call to arms but evidence it ain't. The support for "Number 1" is a comment left on another blog, that agrees the interface is not great - but from a woman who has edited and created pages, and does not seem intimidated by it.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 20:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC).
I don't have any evidence, Rich, it just seems obvious that it would be a factor. Wikipedia feels like a neglected old seaside town. It's still a great place, but there's nowhere to buy good cheese, bread, olive oil or coffee, and when you go to the local pub you have to fight your way through swirly carpets and cigarette smoke. People still visit because it's the seaside, but they come away disappointed every time. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Bread or roses? If an application doesn't work, do aesthetics matter? Perhaps a mowed lawn and some geraniums in the window would send a message to drifters that this neighborhood is watched, and there are easier pickings elsewhere. ...and adding an image to see what it does to the text box. —Neotarf (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Recently, women have come to outnumber men in some social media domains. They use social network sites such as Facebook more often and more actively than men (Brenner 2012), and female users predominate on the microblogging site Twitter, the consumer review site Yelp, and the online pinboard Pinterest. More males, in contrast, frequent music-sharing sites such as last.fm, as well as Reddit, a social news website known for its sometimes misogynistic content (HuffPost Women 2012; Williams 2012); contributors to Wikipedia are also overwhelmingly male (Lam et al. 2011). Moreover, the professional social network site LinkedIn has attracted almost twice as many males as females. LinkedIn representatives claim that this is because men are better at professional networking than women, at least in some industries (Berkow 2011), whereas women have traditionally focused on maintaining relationships (Fallows 2005; cf. Tannen 1990). Women's greater concerns about privacy and identity disclosure on social network sites (Fogel and Nehmad 2009) may also predispose them to interact with individuals they already know and trust (Muscanell and Guadagno 2012), which Facebook and other social network site facilitate through features such as "friending."
Crocco, Cramer, and Meier (2008) argue that the move toward web-based computing has had an equalizing effect on gendered technology use. If equality is defined as equal in principle access, women in the United States have caught up with men. At the same time, the web is becoming increasingly specialized by gender. Although many sites are male-dominated, women today have more choices of online environments than they did in the past, including social media sites in which they can exercise a degree of control over who reads and comments on their contributions. As discussed further below, users of these social media sites tend to be less anonymous than in earlier text-based forums.
So women online place more importance than men on spending time with people congenial to them, prefer to avoid people who are not, and like to form more meaningful personal relationships than men. (Incidentally, one take-away from Wikimania was that two people told me, based on their experience as arbitrators, that women object more strenuously to socking than men, and for different reasons: men object because it corrupts the process, but women feel it is a personal breach of trust if the same person uses several identities to talk to them.) Now, in general, Wikipedia is quite hostile to all of these concepts. Forming relationships is actively frowned upon in some ways and engenders mistrust (cf. rules against canvassing, meatpuppeting—which also have good justifications of course), and anonymity is a paramount value.
As for avoiding people who aren't congenial, Wikipedia articles, like waterholes, attract species of editors with opposing agendas who have to somehow coexist, despite the tension between them, in order to work here. It's stressful. Writing on any mildly contentious topic in Wikipedia you are practically bound to come up against the very sort of people whom you might most avoid associating with in your private life.
In short, despite successful initiatives like edit-a-thons that emphasise the communal aspects of contributing by like-minded people acting without the cover of anonymity, the deck is in many ways stacked against equal gender participation on Wikipedia.
But if you look at the examples the Handbook mentions, it is also worthwhile to note that, quite apart from anonymity and the patterns of social interaction, the sites where men are most dominant – Wikipedia and Reddit – are very, very dry and text-based. The sites where women predominate look quite different from Wikipedia. Pinterest is full of gorgeous, nourishing images. So is Yelp. People on Twitter and Facebook share personal images with friends, etc.
It's clear that men don't care much about desktop aesthetics if there is function, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence suggesting that women do. If you look at other parts of life, pubs, bars, tea places, coffee houses etc. attractive mainly to men look different from those mainly frequented by women, and the average bachelor's flat shows less evidence of aesthetic ambition than the average single woman's place. Obviously, we are always talking bell curves here, with plenty of men and women found at either extreme, but the averages are not in the same place on the scale. AndreasJN466 10:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Andreas, this hits the nail on the head in so many ways. It would be great if it could be posted as an essay, or on the task force page here. SlimVirgin(talk) 17:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, Slim. An expanded version will shortly be a blog post on WO. AndreasJN466 18:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Will it be CC-BY-SA 3.0? All the best: RichFarmbrough, 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC).
I'm happy to post it on-wiki, either as an essay or elsewhere (which will take care of the licence at the same time). Incidentally, it's sparked press coverage in Spain (El Confidencial) and Italy (Pronews.it). AndreasJN466 17:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Except for the bits that are wrong! All the best: RichFarmbrough, 19:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC).
is there evidence that design issues contributes to the gender gap? If so, I couldn't agree more with SV. Why spend money on big projects that no one is asking for? Low hanging fruit indeed.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
As linked above [Sue Gardner's article on why women don't edit, Number 1, which is more related to user-friendly. But that includes a non-intimidating and pleasing appearance. Of course, the new Beta format is supposed to address those issues. But between old users not wanting to learn it and various bugs still being fixed, that's still being worked on. As a lazy old user, I can't really comment on alternatives myself, except to say if they are an option for those who prefer them, great. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
[Later note: Also, given that many women are busy doing child and adult care and house work that they tend to get stuck with more, plus their day jobs, a simple and easily learned, well-organized interface (and help and policy sections) also make it more likely they'll take the time to edit and learn the ropes. Wikipedia's failings in this area does point out The Tyranny of structurelessness in more anarchistically organized sites. Not that top down ones like Facebook, where women do abound, are necessarily easier, and of course many think they trick and manipulate users for profit. Hopefully some geniuses will fix it all someday! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
This saddens me, to see such outright sexism on our own Gender Gap page. What's the point? Boys like to edit in a smelly locker room with pinups on the wall while girls like everything neatly in its place with lace curtains and potpourri? How can we promote closing the Gap when we perpetuate cultural stereotypes and slurs? A more productive effort would be to beef up articles about girls who've won Nobel prizes, academic honors, and national elections. SPECIFICOtalk 13:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
The text editor is a huge barrier for new users. My first edit took me a huge amount of time to google, and a lot of the instructions I saw online were just plain wrong. It took me 3 hours to figure out how to do the second edit. But the VE is a disaster. I have heard it is being used to train new users now--they can hardly wait 3 hours for a second edit, can they?--but I don't know of any female editors who use it. I suspect it will prove more valuable in attracting retired academics that will be required for the next phase of WP's growth. (And it probably isn't helpful to refer to grown women who are notable enough for their own BLP as "girls"). —Neotarf (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
SPECIFICO no girl has ever won the Nobel prize or a national election. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Though Malala Yousafzai was widely rumored to be a favorite. --GRuban (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh plenty of gals are Nobels and plenty of guy Nobels tell off-color locker room jokes when they think they're in private. It's just one of those things. Also the female Laureates also tell off-color tales from time to time and some of both the males and females harbor gender biases of various kinds. Just sayin'... Cheers. SPECIFICOtalk 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Marie Curie grew up and won two! All the best: RichFarmbrough, 21:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC).
More WikiWand/improved image handling (arbitrary break)
Just out of curiosity, I have heard of something called "vector skins" or somesuch that is (maybe) supposed to change the appearance of...something or other. Know anything about that? —Neotarf (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
The only thing I've heard of is Winter. Work began on it at the end of 2013, but I don't know its status, or what it will look like. Pinging Jorm (WMF) who might be willing to update us. Hi Brandon, we're talking about WikiWand, design and how it might affect the gender gap. SlimVirgin(talk) 21:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Winter, yeah there's a test page, fake notifications (I hope, otherwise Oliver Keyes has been talking about me), the drop down boxes are nice, collapsed language box, nice fonts or whatever, the margins are a little narrow, but I expanded my screen to almost full view and it was better, nice having the box with similar topics above the fold. Downside: talk page is not nested, so no way to respond to specific comments; I don't really like the right-hand column, can't explain why. —Neotarf (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing a right-hand column that's empty for most of the article (except for the navigation box at the top) so that in sections with images there are 3–5 words per line. I'm assuming it's not meant to look that way. I'd expect the images to run down the right-hand column. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the navbox takes up a lot of room, maybe that would make the columns wider. It's nice to be able to put images on the right or left, but then you have to take care not to have them too close together, not sure why they're usually on the right. On the free WordPress blogs, you can't get enough whitespace around the image if you put it on the left. Too bad VE isn't more like the WordPress text editor. —Neotarf (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
There's also Athena. That page was started in 2011. I don't know what the relationship is between Winter and Athena. SlimVirgin(talk) 22:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Looks like mainly for phones. Wonder when they're going to fix the Signpost, it's completely unreadable on cellphone unless you go to it from a link on a user page. —Neotarf (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Oh, here's the "skin" thing. At the top of the page when you are logged on, under preferences > appearance > skin there are 4 options, doesn't really say what it's for. —Neotarf (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
SlimVirgin: (Putting my comment here, so as not to mess with the other indentions) Winter is a series of design experiments aimed at modernizing the interface. There's a lot going on there (it has a project page on mediawiki.org and you can play with a prototype. You can't log into the prototype (which is why the notifications are all generic). I talked a lot about this at Wikimania, but the gist is: "Athena" is an a sort of "umbrella" project, of which Winter is part of.
The sidebar is a work in progress - we want to pull "meta" information into it (things like infoboxes) and do things like include galleries and other ways to surface additional content as well as possible contribution vectors. The question about moving all the images into that side bar has come up before but the problem is that images inserted into the content are typically associated with text that's near them; pulling them out doesn't allow for us to keep them in context.
It's status is that we are in development to make it a beta feature, which will be opt-in (probably for a long time) before we talk about making it permanent.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Hi Brandon, thank you for the quick response. The issue that prompted this question is the appearance of WikiWand. It looks really good, and I would love to be able to re-create that look on Wikipedia.
One of the obstacles is the way we handle images. I have no technical knowledge or vocabulary, so I don't even know how to describe this properly or what questions to ask you. But basically when we try to introduce those grey block quotes, the images won't allow us to place them where we want to.
Is there anything the Foundation can do to help us develop new tools reasonably quickly with the current interface, so that we can approximate some of the WikiWand features? SlimVirgin(talk) 00:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I've added an image above Andreas' text box above, not sure if this is the formatting problem that is meant. But surely the MediaWiki markup is a mature product--would creating a beta with one or two small changes be so complex? —Neotarf (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Agree that it would be great if we could modernise the look on here like WikiWand. I really think white text on a dark background as a border makes the text in the article stand out more. I preferred the original wikiwand look with the white font on picture but they had problems with visibility on some images. I don't like the current white box obscuring part of the image but if they moved the grey and white side header to the centre top of image and remove the white bottom and replaced the side header with "contents" it would look a lot better. I've seen a glimpse of your Athena design on The Beatles @Jorm (WMF): and I really think the big background image with the title at the top on it is the way to go at least. What I saw of the "Winter" design though IMO it looked bland and unappealing. I'd like to see the new skin introduced following the design of WikiWand as much as possible. I'm pretty sure then if you did a survey you'd find in a short period of time that the majority of editors prefer it. I've read some comments from people saying "wikipedia should be plain white and conservative, flashy headers and images distract the reader" but for me it's the absolute opposite and makes the text far more attractive to read and improves the quality and appearance. I currently use WikiWand or the reader function on Safari for browsing wikipedia. A reader function Brandon like on Safari like a book I think would be a good feature to introduce too. Not quite sure what this has to do with gender gap though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the Beatles article on Athena looked great. The mobile site looks pretty good too. The Beatles doesn't look so good because the images are too small, but I like the font, though I'd prefer it a bit smaller and the lines of text shorter. SlimVirgin(talk) 20:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
"Pay to play" proposal?
If people have a serious proposal - especially one controversial to the list or the community - they should create a section and not just put it on the main page so we can discuss if we want it to go past the proposal stage. Perhaps the author could explain it here? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
What happened to being bold? In any case, one way of closing the gender gap is obviously to increase the number of female editors. The WMF is a fundraising machine, and apparently has funds to pay developers to create features that the community seemingly doesn't want, send staff and board members all over the world for conferences etc. Why not take some of those funds and have a little experiment. Find an all-girls school and pay them to offer a year long course that requires their students to edit articles. I don't know what the syllabus should entail, but I'm sure something can be put down on paper. My suggestion of using the Philippines is because they speak English and compared to the US/UK, it's pretty darn cheap over there. You could probably get schools over there to do this for less of a stipend then elsewhere. If you want to expand this, do the same thing for an all-boys school and a co-ed school. I'm not a scientist, so I can't speak to control groups etc, but I'm sure someone who is familiar with the scientific method could suggest a way to do this to collect statistics.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
I think this is a non-starter proposal for several reasons:
Paid editing on topics is still frowned upon at Wikipedia and those admitting they are paid often find their editing options limited.
Many Wikipedians would consider the proposal that child labor in Global South nations be “exploited” in such a fashion offensive. I’m sure Wikipedia:WikiProject Organized Labour would have an absolute and understandable fit about it.
We are trying to build up long term editing by people doing it as volunteers for love of the work.
Ok, provide funds for educational institutions to have classes devoted to wiki editing. No paid editing, as the students aren't getting paid, yet earning credit.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:54, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Oppose: Pay to play is an incredibly bad idea. As for institutions, as I note below, its not likely to be necessary.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm just brainstorming. I realize paid editing is a touchy subject. But I think that is more a case of paying to write specfic articles, not random content.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
its been a long time since I've used the scientific method, but what about getting a pool of students to edit. Have half use identifiable gender names, and the other half unidentifiable (thus assumed to be male?). Unleash them on the encyclopedia and start collecting data. It would be very interesting to take a group of male editors and give them female names and see how that compares to male editors with male names. Also interesting would be female editors with feminine names compared to female editors with masculine names.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:14, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
There are already groups of students who edit/create articles as a part of coursework every year. I've seen them around sometimes, usually when then their newbie work ends up in AfD. I suspect a dedicated editor could hook up with the prof in one of those courses and get the students to take some survey after their project is done, and see if the responses vary by gender.--Milowent • hasspoken 01:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm was thinking the group could propose the WMF coordinate this. I'm not qualified to build a study, but they can afford to pay someone who is qualified to commission a study and examine the results. Just for kicks, it wouldn't hurt to write an abstract of what you want to test. I'll look into how to form an abstract and perhaps create a sub page and ask for suggestions.Two kinds of pork (talk) 01:54, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Unarchiving
I see some contentious threads that were previously archived have now been unarchived. Looks like same old. same old. I have taken this group off my watch list. Have nice day. —Neotarf (talk) 00:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Slim archived a bunch of threads, and archived a thread I was interested in. I undid her action because I dont know how to undo just one section.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It's called cut and paste. Go to archives, cut out the item, put it back here. Slim Virgin should feel free to archive the rest that haven't been discussed since being unarchived. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:30, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
That method would create a confusing index trail and could result in misdirecting editors who are searching for discussion on the topic. SPECIFICOtalk 13:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
That's right. That's why when a discussion has been archived, the appropriate way to continue an archived discussion is to start a new thread with a link to the previous discussion, not to dismantle the archive or "unarchive" things. The "confusing index trail" was started when the archived discussions were "unarchived" against usual practice. When reopening a discussion is desired, links to archived discussions can be provided in the new discussion thread.[1]__ E L A Q U E A T E 13:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
So if Two Kinds of Pork still wants to talk about a specific topic thread, they should start a new thread that says something like "I still have things to say about this recently closed topic [link to archived discussion]". Otherwise, mass reversions like this cause archiving grief. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the members of this group can archive using whatever method they agree upon. Many other groups from time to time will vary from automatic archiving to remove threads (contentious or otherwise) they don't want around, or bring back old discussions, its not like its impossible to find the material if you really want to.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
It depends is best answer. If it's something short that actually might be prematurely closed like Two Kinds wanted to put back in, I don't think it's a big deal to cut and paste. If it's an older closed thread that has a new angle, definitely brand new thread that links to old one is best. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:15, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Hold Wales & WMF accountable
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Since Wales said the WMF would be doubling down on closing the gender gap, would it behoove the project to add to its goals to monitor and communicate with the WMF about their efforts?Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon 01:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
You mean elect an ambassador or minister of communications? Set quantitative goals, per the methodology of RS studies? Possibly. SPECIFICOtalk 02:00, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Not bad, as long as we are brainstorming a media czar to drum up pressure with news organizations.Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon 02:14, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you volunteering for the role? SPECIFICOtalk 02:28, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Heck no! I'm just an idea guy. @SlimVirgin: knows this place better than anyone else. She would probably be best suited for talking to WMF. I've no idea if she or anyone else would be interested in the post.Two Kinds of PorkMakin'Bacon 04:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a relief! I would not have cast my vote for you. There are several able candidates whose names come to mind if we go that route. SPECIFICOtalk 04:12, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey guys! Can I join your circle jerk? I see this is a section where no member of the GGTF has posted, and I'm not one either, so let's keep it that way! I would like to appoint myself Minister of Male Asshattedness, what we can do to support the group is to act like absolute infantile fuckheads who appear like we want to undermine the GGTF, and in doing so, we'll raise such a ruckus that women editors will come roaring into Wikipedia in droves. I mean it worked a little bit when we cleverly put all women novelists into their category, and kept the real "novelists" (the males) separate, and Amanda Filipacchi capitalized on it quite fine! I mean, this could really work!--Milowent • hasspoken 04:34, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
TPOK is deleting my comment to this discussion, as well as my attempt to collapse the subheading.[2] I would appreciate restoration by anyone willing to do so, because I find myself unable to engage in editing when faced with such offensive tactics. Now I know what it feels like to have my voice silenced, and it feels wrong.--Milowent • hasspoken 05:43, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The WMF doesn't really know what to do about the gender gap. Me, I'm convinced that a multipronged strategy is needed for several parts of the "pipeline": attracting more women to press the save button for the first time (which Lila T believes is the hardest bit); promoting a culture of social support for newbies (well, all editors, but especially newbies); and organising concerted efforts by editors of both genders to improve our coverage of women and women's topics (sport, anyone; science, anyone?). Each of these strategies can be pursued without dependence on the others, and be either individually or socially supported.
Every time I come into contact with a newbie, I write something encouraging on their page. It bounces back very positively when they haven't already experienced brash rudeness. So it becomes self-therapy, if you like. Does everyone on this page encourage a newbie at least once a week? Some of them might be women. Tony(talk) 08:32, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I can see that there has been a bit of warring over inclusion of some of the messages above but I'm struggling to find when it was hatted. @Scottywong: did it but the edit summary says they were restoring something. From Milowent's message, it looks like they did it the original hatting but why do so anyway? It just looks like censorship and I don't see the need for it. Tony1's message, certainly, has value; so too does everything up to the point where Milowent began ranting. - Sitush (talk) 15:18, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't know who hatted it but it's time to archive it. Milowent was very naughty taking the mocking fun of the six previous messages to their natural conclusion. Where's the wet noodle? And why is Sitush posting here when [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=619062389&oldid=619061084 he famously has written: The sooner the misconceived "Task Force" (why not "Project", instead of a military-inspired term that implies official status?) is disbanded, the sooner harmony will be restored.
Also note the Countering systemic bias main page lists seven "task forces" so ask them that question. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:52, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Famously? Really? What a bloody joke. This task force, with you effectively in charge, is a practically fascist regime at present. Why not comment on the substance of the thread instead of acting like a goading prat?- Sitush (talk) 15:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the use of "fascist regime" is unnecessarily evocative. There are many examples of task forces which have the bulk of contributions from a small number of participants, and many where a single voice is omnipresent. That reality doesn't automatically make it worthy of your description. I urge you to retract it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:39, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@Sitush: on the chance that you did not see my request.--S Philbrick(Talk) 11:04, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. This page is not on my watchlist, so I didn't see your note. Perhaps "fascist regime" is unnecessarily evocative, although that is probably in the eye of the beholder. My point was that the practice of censorship, demagoguery, shouting down, repetition until something sticks, and so forth seems to be the order of the day here. I've still got no idea why the thread was hatted. No-one seems to have given a good reason for doing so. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
And my point is that when you have a valid point, but over-reach, the valid point gets lost.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
She's not "in charge". No one is. It's a volunteer project. She posts a lot. Sometimes people do what she says, especially when they think it worthwhile. Sometimes they don't. At least some of us have been contributing to WP:CSB articles about women for longer than Carol has been in Wikipedia. --GRuban (talk) 21:46, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, in fairness, I notice that there are some decent people here who have tried to point out the excesses. The "effective leadership" is as much due to the volume of her postings and is sort of referred to in this note by Black Kite. There is a gap and, yes, it could probably be narrowed. I doubt it will get to 50:50, for a variety of behavioural reasons that also account, for example, for the alleged reverse gap at Facebook. What I'm seeing on my odd visit here, though, and in the spewings of related material on pages that I do watchlist, is talk more about civility and meta-comments offering alleged proofs etc than resolving the gap itself. We have projects that cover civility and what is evident from this very thread is that one of the few potentially constructive, workable proposals that I've seen in my skimmings here was rejected by hatting almost without opposition. - Sitush (talk) 12:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
(Redacted), you've publicly said you want the project closed down. How are people who would like to do something constructive here supposed to take you seriously? Geez... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:ANI ban proposals for Titanium Dragon and Tutelary
At WP:ANI#Wikipediocracy_doxxing there is proposal to ban Titanium Dragon and Tutelary, and a suggestion was made that we be informed here. Titanium Dragon commented here a bit, and the reason to ban him seems incidental to our charter, but Tutelary is a project member, and among the suggested reasons for banning (WP:ANI#Tutelary) is that she is actually a man, pretending to be a woman, specifically for the purposes of disruption by voicing anti-feminist opinion on Wikipedia as an ostensible female. That's the suggestion, mind, I'm not necessarily endorsing it myself. The initial claim of and evidence for this is on the Wikipediocracy forums, and as far as I understand the consensus there is that we can't link to it, though we can mention its existence and the fact that it can be found with use of a search engine. --GRuban (talk) 16:10, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
That's a rather hearty accusation and a pointy section title, so where's the proof? You mean the Wikipediocracy post where they freakin' doxxed me? I am a female, my name is Danielle and the proof for anything of 'disruption' has been seriously lacking in any context. They used my freakin' edit count on pages I edit the most as proof of my 'disruption' and you mentioning the accusation is much like presenting a biased and non-contexual view. "A man arrested for theft, it is unknown whether he beat his wife or not." -- Which implies that there was a good chance he beat his wife. This is absolutely no comparison in this other than trying to drag my name through the absolute dirt by presenting only one side of the story. Off wiki evidence cannot be used for sanctions and it's ridiculous that you're attempting to do so. Oh, and using dots as if to imply that I'm not female is an insult, plain and simple. is that she is actually a man, pretending to be a woman, specifically for the purposes of disruption by voicing anti-feminist opinion on Wikipedia as an ostensible female. No, that's not the accusation or the point held at WP:ANI at all. Tutelary (talk) 18:24, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
Dots point taken, same removed. --GRuban (talk) 19:26, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I think the rest of this discussion should be at ANI. ANI notices in general should be short and neutral, not trying to influence others to take a particular position. Iselilja (talk) 18:34, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:ANI relevant to this group's disruption problems
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Do you ever actually work on articles, or do you consider that to be somehow beneath you? EricCorbett 17:09, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you just mind your own business? EricCorbett 18:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@Eric Corbett: because that's the exact opposite of how Wikipedia works? Further because you have a history of harassing Carolmooredc? EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 18:52, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Do I really? Any proof of that? Or should we just go straight to AN/I because of your personal attack? EricCorbett 18:59, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Stop being a dickhead, Eric. Let's just stop this side conservation, or hat this section.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:13, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Hmm, another personal attack and yet another attempt to hide them. Do you guys have no integrity whatsoever? EricCorbett 19:16, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Eric, you started this exchange with a gratuitous personal attack. What are you trying to accomplish here? __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:33, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was a reasonable question so I looked and would suggest not a lot. As for civility, it is odd that editors who consider themselves "civil" can only see incivility in others. J3Mrs (talk) 19:44, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
It's a clearly unreasonable non sequitur of a question in response to a neutral notice of a discussion on another project page. What does anyone's edit history have to do with the subject of this thread? __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:58, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Eric: this is my business. Let me link DefendEachOther again. I'm a member of this project and this task force, which makes it my business, specifically per that link. Carol's starting this section was appropriate for this project, this task force, and this page. Your contribution above serves no useful purpose, and does harm. Please stop it. --GRuban (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
OK people, EVERYONE DROP THE STICK. This is not going to get anyone anywhere. Carol: Your posting is one thing, but your commentary violates WP:CANVASS, just say "notice of discussion" with a link and then drop it. Let the drama go to the page in question. Eric, your comments are better on this editor's own talk page than on the project page; I know none of the rest of us have any say in matters here if we disagree with this editor (even if we are female and feminist), but nonetheless, do not confuse the two. Montanabw(talk) 20:05, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
@Montanabw: Montana this isnt going to just go away, there needs to be some discussion had here at the right place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:08, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This is not the right forum and not the right parties. CMDC and Corbett are both people who just like to poke at each other, it will not resolve the serious, legitimate issues that this task force was originally supposed to address. Montanabw(talk) 01:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not even in this thread. I don't like to poke at him, though I have been pretty fed up with his constant disruptions in the past and had to comment, foolishly thinking maybe he'd get the point. Please be careful about ascribing motives before they build urban legends. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:29, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Carol, you accused me of being a man just because I disagreed with you. As far as I'm concerned, your little "civility" campaign is just a drama fest, you don't understand wikipedia well enough to actually be very credible here and I am concerned that you are hurting a lot more than you are helping. Montanabw(talk) 01:56, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure I just wrote "he". In any case I'm not a mind reader about who is and who is not a man or woman when they use gender neutral names; and I usually don't go to user pages to figure it out, since often there is no evidence there one way or the other.
In any case, people who don't want to work on civility issues don't have to. And frankly I am coming to agree with those who said we need to go off wiki, but not on the Gender gap itself, just the civility issue. I can see also that Editor Retention has some of the same problems with the civility issue as here, just not as bad. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)
You sure were fast to make assumptions, though. It is clear that this is your little queen beehive and anyone not wanting to be a submissive worker bee for The Queen is expected to go elsewhere. Montanabw(talk) 04:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
You argue from the position of logical fallacies. "Be nice to Carol" is not "civility," and not wanting to join your clique does not mean that an individual has no interest in the topic. But off-wiki would probably be the only way to avoid the troll-fest this page has become. Montanabw(talk) 04:25, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I really don't see a need for all these personal attacks but since everything I say to you seems to piss you off, I won't say anything to you any more, OK? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Critical commentary does not equate to "personal attacks". EricCorbett 13:50, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
There is so much to do in this taskforce, it's strange and regrettable to see people arguing. Could we drop the negativity and support each other, please? Tony(talk) 13:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Where's the archive with the "blue sky" proposal?
There have been a lot of references to a discussion where there were many ideas thrown around, including the idea of needing the consensus of 2 male editors to revert a woman. Anyone know where this discussion can be found? Grognard Chess(talk)Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 22:12, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
Who cares? It's a nonsense idea and should properly go nowhere. Montanabw(talk) 01:19, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the idea was suggested in this edit. —Granger (talk·contribs) 02:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
I actually feel a bit physically ill about what people have done with this group; every time I see something else in the history it gets worse. It appears one editor edited the project page to include that modest proposal on 5 July without prior discussion, and it was removed a few weeks later by CMDC, apparently again without discussion. The proposal was without merit, and it merits no further discussion.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:09, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
Indeed, it was just condescending nonsense of the "let's get more women on wikipedia if we have pink pages" variety, possibly planted just to stir up drama. Montanabw(talk) 04:59, 17 September 2014 (UTC)
The edit I linked to was on the project page, not the talk page, so it would not normally be archived. However, an archived discussion about the idea can be found here. —Granger (talk·contribs) 16:53, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
We're been around this block before. Here is the July 4 LawrencePrincipe entry. Here is the July 29th removal by me. The only discussion of it was maybe 6 weeks after the removal. You can find those somewhere in the archive. If you want further details, why not go to User:LawrencePrincipe and discuss it with him. There are a few other questionable proposals that also are best discussed with the proposer. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:00, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
Images
I am advised that a big gap in the attractiveness of Wikipedia as far as celebrities are concerned is the lack of images. Not lots an lots, a la Hello but a nice head-shot in the infobox. This of course is partly due to our restrictions on fair use images of living people. Perhaps we could change this to be slightly more permissive?
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 21:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC).
People have to be more proactive in contacting these peoples' publicity representatives, at least some of whom would prefer having a nice photo than some of those that end up on the page. Maybe there could be a page on commons (linked here) that would explain how to find and contact their representatives. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Or a contact for the publicity representatives to talk to? Isn't this a problem for Commons? —Neotarf (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean by "problem". In other words Commons help could list a few sites that list celebrities contact people, assuming it doesn't already, since I haven't looked. And assuming there are such, which I assume :-). It's no different than asking anyone else for permission to use their photos under which ever license is relevant. (Haven't uploaded in a while so have forgotten a lot of details.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
Hopeless
The things that drive off female editors from wikipedia are some of the same things that keep a lot of women in the real world from reaching their potential. I will note that many these same behaviors drive off male editors as well. If we solve these problems, it will be a great thing. However, I fear it is hopeless. But I'll outline my views nonetheless. Montanabw(talk) 04:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Bullying and harassment. My own experience is that seldom is it gender-directed (I have a gender ambiguous user name, often those who attack me assume I am male). However, the trolls, the bullies, the POV-pushers, the tendentious editors, and the flat-out crazies all seem to have mastered ways to game the system and those attempting to simply edit content in good faith seem to get the short end of the stick. Montanabw(talk) 04:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
"Systemic bias" - which I define as the unconscious (or only partially conscious) tendency to view topics about or of interest to people who resemble them (often, though not always white men under 30 who like video games) of generally greater interest and more easy to pass WP:GNG than topics about people who are not like them (women, people of color, historical figures, etc.). Examples abound, I see this frequently in articles about women who are actors or college professors being nominated for AfD and held to a higher standard of notability than, for example, an article about a male sports figure from an obscure sport who perhaps played one season as a pro. I see similar problems with recentism and on topics involving non-white people: I work on articles about Native Americans, where I find rather appalling levels of cluelessness on the part of some editors. I think it's ignorance rather than racism, but it's a dogged insistence that their ignorance is actually correct Montanabw(talk) 04:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is NOT:
A) the interface. For chrissake, women routinely learn customized database programs and a host of other technological skills. Wikipedia is not that complicated to edit.
B) the topics: we don't need pink ponies and magic unicorns. Or fashion. That's really condescending
OK, off soapbox now. Montanabw(talk) 04:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree that the interface, while a problem for some, is not the main problem. The main problem is once women get past all the other issues that keep them from editing, women have a far lower tolerance for incivility and game playing than guys, many of whom may see it as sport; more women value civility and honest collaboration, as various studies show. So your number 1 is an excellent argument for stronger enforcement of civility in general and a robust mediation effort (with paid mediators if necessary).
The double standards you talk about in number two also apply to number one. Having naively registered with my name, I have seen dozens of examples of males saying nasty things that were ignored while I got trashed for things that editors only assumed were or took as insults. I also got two major blocks for things that guys usually would get short ones for and only interventions by the community in one case and Admins and Arbitrator in another, shortened them. A PC mag article said a study of wikipedia showed that "female editors are more likely to get blocked indefinitely". (Haven't had a chance to identify and read it yet. Listing of dozens of relevant research/article/links almost ready for prime time.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I doubt that things would be any different if we were to pay male mediators here. Hiring female mediators gets back to the affirmative action question. At any rate, I've seen some male mediators fall flat on their male faces here, and male-on-male incivility is more the rule than the exception -- male Admins included. However, back to our mission: I'm sure that any female editor who could show that she was sanctioned due to her gender could effectively appeal and reverse her block. In fact, if such an event could ever be demonstrated to have occurred, it would be her obligation to other women and to the Project to expose such discrimination. SPECIFICOtalk 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Systemic bias/double standards do not necessarily show in specific language which can be used at evidence. They tend to show in numbers which have to be collected. One woman sharing anecdotes can lead to a number of women sharing them, a start in the evidence collection process. Unless of course the place where they are shared is so overwhelmed with people opposed to women sharing their stories, hectoring and challenging women that most women are driven out. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
If I understand you, this is again a promotion of affirmative action solutions. Are you saying that statistical evidence -- "numbers which have to be collected" -- would tell the community to reverse the sanction of an individual editor for behavior not referenced or even known to those in the statistical sample? SPECIFICOtalk 13:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
SPECIFICO wrote: "I doubt that things would be any different if we were to pay male mediators here. Hiring female mediators gets back to the affirmative action question." I didn't say anything about the sex of the mediators.
SPECIFICO is also conflating collecting evidence of systemic bias in general as a consciousness raising effort with some more bureaucratic means of telling the community to reverse a sanction. Stop assuming a false point you are trying to prove? The community will reverse an obviously unfair sanction, using whatever evidence there is, be it some admin saying "I'm blocking this stupid female/Arab/African-American" or be it someone getting a six month block for doing something that individuals normally get a 2 day block for, especially should it be special circumstances, like someone who is harassed telling someone to f#ck off or calling them a "l**p d**k" or something. In short, if it is proved that there is a pattern of sanctioning women more harshly, and editors think that's what's happening and they oppose that sort of thing, they'll say so. It's not some rule imposed from above. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
The reactions and comments there are depressingly supportive of the staus quo. SPECIFICOtalk 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Gender and video
You may have already seen this news item about Anita Sarkeesian. Here is "Damsel in Distress: Part 2 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games", well worth watching even if you don't edit in video topics: http://youtu(DOT)be/toa_vH6xGqs. (Replace the dot.) Does this raise some questions about the use of video as a RS? Or about adding some of this information to articles about specific videos mentioned in the series? —Neotarf (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
You might want to query the folks at RSN.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you present it to them yourself if you think they may be interested. I posted it here as an FYI for consideration by the women, in the context of their project. —Neotarf (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Does this raise some questions about the use of video as a RS was your original question, no? I'm not sure what your last statement means. Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Wikiproject Women writers
I've started a new project, WP:WOMWRI, which may interest you. There are so many novelists and poets and journalists and bloggers whose articles haven't been created yet or need improvement. If you have translation skills, take a look at all the articles about women writers on other language Wikipedias and you'll see that many of them don't have a presence on the English language one. The WP is hours old, so there's no formal invitation template yet, just this note from me to you. If you're up for it, roll up your sleeves and let's launch this WP with vigor. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)
Great. Linked to it on main page under Wikiprojects. As you can see under our To Do list, there are a bunch of different lists of women's bios in all categories that need creating or updating from stub. You may be able to find some more writers there. Maybe someday I (or someone else) will integrate them all into a list somwhere sensible! Also, I even updated three women feminist writers' bios today. Yeah!!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Carol. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
New paper
Interesting paper on, inter alia, women on Wikipedia:
Quoted shared on Email list: A persistent gender difference is that female contributors communicate in a manner that promotes social affiliation and emotional connection more than male editors, irrespective of their status in the community. Female regular editors are the most relationship-oriented, whereas male administrators are the least relationship-focused. Finally, emotional and linguistic homophily is prevalent: editors tend to interact with other editors having similar emotional styles.
Of course, they're talking more about voluntary interaction as opposed to some of the negative types that women too often end up being subjected to. I'm still waiting for a detailed study of those interactions! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The following sentence from the abstract is apposite. ..editors expressing more anger connect more with one another
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 23:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC).
Interestingly this paper, which is on the talk page contributions of editors with over 100 article talk page contributions supports the claim that the difference between admin and non admin gender ratios is negligible, and, if anything there are a bigger percentage of female admins than of female non-admins (in this case 6.42% compared to 6.26%). This paper only deals with self-identified gender via the Preferences tab, as far as I can see, which we are aware massively under-reports females compared with males.
Secondly it provides the source for the 16.1% female editor figure. The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited a paper I had not previously read.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 00:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC).
That (latter) paper was linked in my blog post. :P Speaking of figures, I am currently trying to find out what the gender split was in the July 2012 WMF editor survey. To this day, I don't think the figure has been reported (in the April 2011 editor survey, it was 8.5%). If I've missed it and it's available somewhere, please let me know. As far as I can tell, at Wikimania 2013 only the 16.1% figure from Shaw & Hill was reported (which is based on the 12.64% figure from the 2010 UNU survey, revised upwards based on assumed sampling bias).
By the way, returning to the Emotions under discussion paper, I don't think it matters if the male pool included some female editors who chose not to identify as female. All it would have done would have been to make the males appear slightly more relationship-oriented than they really are. ;) The conclusions from that paper (I mean the five paragraphs or so at the end, rather than the short paragraph that is part of the abstract) are really worth reading. I thought they put it very well. Cheers, AndreasJN466 20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I remember there was a problem with the 2012 survey and the banner not showing. People were complaining that they hadn't been able to respond in time. Andreas, do you have a link to the survey results? SlimVirgin(talk) 21:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
See [3] and [4] on Meta. The results have still not been released, as far as I can tell. I've pinged User:Tbayer (WMF) a few times these past days, but haven't heard back as yet. I also asked Phoebe on the Gendergap list, no reply. :( AndreasJN466 21:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
That's odd. I hope Tilman responds to your ping because it would be good to have an updated figure.
I agree that the last few paragraphs of that paper are worth discussing, so I'm posting them here. They speak to some of the issues people have mentioned above:
We find that higher-status editors promote a neutral, impersonal and more formal conversation tone in Wikipedia. They “rule with reason”, and maintain a mildly positive tone – a crucial aspect to the good functioning of the collaborative project. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether administrator neutrality fulfills the needs of the community in the long run. Peer-production communities are settings of voluntary contribution, and emotions play an important role in group dynamics, requiring expression. Relationship-oriented communication has been found to increase contributions [24] and, interestingly, regular editors use this linguistic style more than administrators. Consequently, the tone of group moderators, and more generally the interaction spaces of such communities should be adapted to facilitate both positive exchanges and the venting out of negative emotion in a constructive manner.
For this aim, the role of female editors is paramount. Indeed our analyses (both automatic and the brief manual analysis of content) provide strong evidence that female editors engage in relationship-oriented speech that is conducive to a positive working environment. Interestingly, this result holds also for female administrators, who diverge significantly from male administrators by being more relationship-oriented. By increasing the diversity of leadership styles and by promoting an atmosphere of openness and concern for others, women leaders play a pivotal role in such online spaces.
These results have implications also for the gender gap issue. Together with the finding of [20] that women tend to interact preferentially with other women, our results suggest that being able to involve more women and to give them more space in the community would also result in a virtuous cycle of female participation, through the creation of a communication environment where they feel more comfortable.
One has to exercise extreme care handling the conclusions of research papers, especially where the authors (usually in common with the matrix community) assume that they have a background knowledge. Take for example Together with the finding of [20] that women tend to interact preferentially with other women, our results suggest that being able to involve more women and to give them more space in the community would also result in a virtuous cycle of female participation, through the creation of a communication environment where they feel more comfortable.
"give them more space in the community" is undefined.
"would also result in a" - this is not something that can be deduced at all. There is no evidence given that homophily attracts.
"virtuous cycle of female participation" - How do we know it would be virtuous? We have problem editors of both genders, while we want more editors, we do not want more problem editors.
"a communication environment where they feel more comfortable" - the assumption is that homophily is due to comfort, whereas other research suggests that gender homophily is due to subject.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC).
Average interests
Anne Delong made the point that simply because the means of two distributions are not identical, it doesn't mean that they are not very close.
(Later in the post, she also made some generic points about welcoming people and identifying barriers which I think would command universal support.)
My concern here is that we do not know the base distributions in, for example, interest. If we did we could correlate these with Wikipedia coverage, and see if the distribution of each gender editors is concomitant with their interests (and even answer the basic question "Is the average Wikipedia article of more interest to males than females?").
Some academic data is available (probably a lot more than I can quickly find), for example 43% of boys were interested in "atoms and molecules" compared with 23% of girls, "What we should eat to be healthy" interested 53% of girls and 36 % of boys. While this is at high school age, it is a at least a datum.
In terms of subjects studied, we are on more slippery ground. More girls study psychology than boys, and more girls (in the UK at least) go into law. However one has to take a subject at university, and choices are not always made purely on interest. Questions such as "Would you read a psychology journal in your spare time?" would be needed to establish a level of interest, rather than simply a vocational choice.
So there is the difficulty in establishing areas of interest. We may (again as an isolated datum) draw on the Wikifashion experience to show that topic probably is relevant to the gender mix editing a particular article. And this is indeed supported somewhat by the PLOS article mentioned above.
Secondly we need to take into account Baron-Cohen's systematising-empathising scale. All encyclopaedias systematise, but Wikipedia more than most, because we embrace NPOV, avoid COI, ban Original Research and Synthesis.
In order to address the gender gap we need to understand it, and it seems to me we lack the raw data to establish the most basic facts. Without these we risk following folklore, and responding with folk remedies.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 01:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC).
Thanks, that is a useful list. I have read most, but not all of it. (The free access material that is!) All the best: RichFarmbrough, 19:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC).
I wrote on Research draft page that blog entries would update us, based on WMF assertions there. I see I hadn't listed any, so just searched the blog again for "editor survey 2012" and in first pass didn't see anything. But a little unfocused right now if anyone else wants to look. I did see complaints on the talk page of the 2012 Survey talk page with complaints and "updates" as of Aug 2014 if you want to check it out. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Considering Anne's example of two Gaussian curves (a good first approximation for many phenomena), and applying it to male and female cohorts of the human population, with the X axis being "Propensity to contribute to Wikipedia" it would be interesting to see the separation in standard deviations required for the outcomes that are observed.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC).
(Anne Delong - may be of interest.)
Given the figures for editors with >100 (>=?) edits to talk pages, and assuming the same standard deviation for male and female the cut-off is as follows
Propensity to make >=100 article talk page edits on English Wikipedia, required SD for male and female editors, assuming normal distribution with same SD.
Gender
Number
Probability
Standard deviations
Female
165
2.28E-008
5.47
Male
2613
3.61E-007
4.96
This is a fairly stunning .5 difference in mean. Of course it could just as easily be difference in SD, if the male SD is 1.1 times the female, for example, or most likely a combination of the two.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 19:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC).
Active nomination of women for administrators
If each subscriber to this WikiProject nominates their best choice of a women editor for becoming an administrator, then this would help address an important part of the recent call by Jimmy Wales for "doubling down" on the issue of the gender gap during this calendar year. During the month of September an active drive for the nomination of women for becoming administrators would allow for the evaluation of their background before the end of 2014. The "glass ceiling" limiting the number of women administrators at Wikipedia is seen as limiting progress toward gender parity described in the 2014 book An Ethnography of Wikipedia.
Proposal moved from main page: 22:54, August 31, 2014 LawrencePrincipe
via Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not all the familiar with the process so it's always good to link to relevant policy page. I get impression individuals first have to make it known they want to be admins. Right now we have a problem with just getting women to stick with editing, so admin is a big step. There probably are some women who would like it and we should find a way to support that. But such affirmative action steps do invite back lash so we have to be careful how we do it. Others' thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
We very much need more female admins. They do need to be suitable and willing; and perhaps there's a privacy/pressure issue in nominating onwiki without first seeking their agreement. I wonder whether it could be done via the email facility, or if email is not enabled, by a cautious note on their talkpage ("Would you consider ...")? Tony(talk) 04:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
RfA can be a cesspool. I've been on wiki 8 years and seldom if ever had any interest in getting the mop. If you have ever been in the least controversial, every enemy you have made on wiki will show up to oppose you. That said, some women have sailed through RfA, such as my friend User:Dana boomer, if they have managed to stay under the radar or keep an extremely positive tone. I'm not one of those people (sometimes I get curious to do an RfA just to see what would happen, but who needs that drama?) Montanabw(talk) 13:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Ditto. Definitely a job for low profile diplomats :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Anyway, I just remembered that as far as the "To Do" list goes, we already have "actively recruit women editors and administrators" under "Affirmative Action measures". And as I've proposed before and may work on soon, if we have a page that fleshes out various proposal, those who want to can get some tips on how to. I know I'd encourage an experienced woman to do it if she showed the slightest interest.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
@Montanabw, @Carolmooredc; There has to be some assumption that women editors who have completed five thousand or more edits would be able to go through the RfA vetting process as experienced editors. The point learned from numerous organizations and institutions is that the editors (non-Admin) do not get very far unless they are supported by management (Admin at Wikipedia). @Carolmooredc; Unless there are more women admins supporting a growing number of women editors, one risks a catch22 where the new women editors are driven away for the same reason of not enough women supporters. A study by Cotter and Hermsen has stated that: “The popular notion of glass ceiling effects implies that gender (or other) disadvantages are stronger at the top of the hierarchy than at lower levels and that these disadvantages become worse later in a person's career.”(David A. Cotter, Joan M. Hermsen, Seth Ovadia and Reeve Vanneman (2001): The Glass Ceiling Effect. Social Forces, Vol. 80, No. 2 (Dec., 2001), pp. 655-681 Published by: Oxford University Press.) One research study by Matsa and Miller suggests that a possible remedy to the glass ceiling could be increasing the number of women on corporate boards, which could subsequently lead to increases in the number of women working in top management positions.(David A. Matsa and Amalia R. Miller (2011): Chipping away at the Glass Ceiling: Gender Spillovers in Corporate Leadership. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 2011, 101:3, 635–639.) The priority for dealing with the "glass ceiling" is to get more women admin first at Wikipedia, and in that way they can help foster a more helpful environment for attracting more women editors. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Sorry but I cannot let the "glass ceiling" remark go without comment. I am well aware of the gender gap, and know many of the reasons for the disparity in numbers of editors. However, I don't recall ever seeing any discussion about the notion that female editors have any more difficulty getting the mop than male editors. I've followed hundreds of RfA requests, and do not recall that gender is even known in many cases. Does someone have some numbers to back this up? If it is a real issue, I'm on board trying to fix it, but I'd like to see some evidence that it is actually a problem. I do not own a copy of An Ethnography of Wikipedia. Is there a quote from the book supporting this claim?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@S Philbrick; Yes, the Ethnography book by Jemielniak covers the discussion of the strong application of the principle that business management theory commentary on managers applies by direct analogy to administrators at Wikipedia in Chapters 1 and 2 in his new book which you mention. The statistics on women admins is taken as the 15% figure for women editors in general at Wikipedia applied without prejudice to women admins as well. Both previous editors responding above have talked about the tough vetting process of RfAs in the past, which I have stated should not be a deterrent in and of itself to nominating strong women editors for admin. The Cotter and Hermson material I quoted above (and all the others writing in business management theory) state that the "glass ceiling" on managers states that experience in the business world teaches over and over that the more that management reflects the policies desired, then the more prevalent do those policies become in the general workplace of employees (editors). That is, for Wikipedia, the larger the number of women admins, then business experience in general teaches that more women in the workplace (women editors) follows. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
So the figures are an unsupported extrapolation from rather dodgey data. WP is not comparable to business management, as the gender of most editors is undisclosed. EricCorbett 17:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I asked if a quote from the book supported the claim. You said "Yes" but your explanation equates to "No". if female admins are in the same ratio as editors, then almost by definition there is no glass ceiling. However, I'm not ready to leap to that conclusion, because, if I read you correctly, the author didn't know and just made the assumption. However, if the author assumed the same ratio, that's equivalent to assuming there is no glass ceiling. So one of two things are true based on your summary: Either the author assumes, without evidence that there is no glass ceiling, or the author has no evidence one way or the other.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
User:LawrencePrincipe I purchased a copy of An Ethnography of Wikipedia and I have now read chapters 1 and 2. I don't see any mention of a glass ceiling. Unfortunately the version is not searchable so it is possible I missed it. Can you give me a more specific location?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I may be wrong, but I believe research shows a greater percentage of female admins than female editors. Someone could do the sums on Arbitrators, since the numbers are low, if the genders are common knowledge. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 17:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC).
I really don't think there's much interest in the facts as opposed to the unchallengeable rhetoric. EricCorbett 17:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's not revert to stale affirmative action knee-jerk solutions which alienate more of the public than they empower. I propose a different approach. First off, it's not female admins we need, but gender-aware, neutral admins. Second, there are many eyes on this talk page and the other feminism-related pages. On these articles, project, and talk pages we see some editors (male and female) distinguishing themselves with solid constructive participation. We see others who are unable to collaborate effectively. In time, I hope to see many of the participants on these pages elevated to Admin, without regard to race, ethnicity, gender, or place of birth. SPECIFICOtalk 18:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The WMF isn't really concerned about editors though, they're easily replaceable. So let's turn the question on its head. What are the topics that female readers think are missing from WP? EricCorbett 18:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
to Rich Farmbrough: a study showing if they identify as female (before or after becoming Admins), what kind of tasks they take on, which tasks they most engage in and why, would be interesting. I'm wondering if it would show they largely do not identify as female and lay low and get along with everyone, earning few enemies to their becoming Admins. In which case stealth recruiting would be the best policy :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
So then be sneaky[5] about it, eh? Where did you get the strange idea that sneakiness is OK? That's exactly the tactic that the antiabortion folks are using as they chip away at women's right to choose. If you are not aware of their tactics you might read our many abortion related articles, written mostly by men, BTW. Gandydancer (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
[Insert: Some individuals evidently aren't allowed to make little jokes, even about the fact that we really don't know from user names if most editors are male or female. Maybe if I put four big s I can get away with the occasional joke? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd prefer to see the alleged facts supported by some reliable evidence, rather than this interminable grandstanding based on false preconceptions. Your mileage may vary of course. EricCorbett 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm rather saddened by this gender war, as until quite recently I never gave a second thought as to whether an editor was male or female. Now it seems I'm obliged to though, even if they don't self-identify as female. EricCorbett 21:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
That's because of privilege rendering gender invisible to you. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 03:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Time to throw in the towel Eric. What with "I was just joking" on one side and invisibility on the other, we're screwed. Gandydancer (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You could well be right. I suppose by "privilege" is meant the fact that I'm male? I've never thought of that as much of a privilege, but regardless, I never cease to be amazed by the conclusions drawn from some pretty dubious research. Is there a gender gap here on WP? Quite possibly. What is it? Nobody really knows. What effect does it have on WP's content? Again, nobody really knows. Not a very good basis for launching a crusade the primary purpose of which appears to be to alienate every male editor by imposing a series of affirmative actions. EricCorbett 17:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's important that this page discuss demonstrated facts and concerns rather than idle conjecture. SPECIFICOtalk 19:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
One thing to consider, and this connects with what Eric was asking, is that there are quite a few male editors who happily work on biographies and other articles about women, and by supporting and recognizing their efforts we may be contributing to closing the content gap in the interim, while still working on recruiting more female editors, of course.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Quite. I'd bet that I've done far more work on biographies of females than many of the most vociferous anti-male commentators here have done. When working on Enid Blyton for instance, the fact that she was female was hardly in my mind. The important thing was that she is one of the most widely read authors in the world, male or female. I'd also like to mention Margaret Thatcher, one of the most important figures in 20th-century British history. Where were the members of this project then, when there was work that needed to be done? EricCorbett 19:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Hey, Eric, be fair now! There are millions of articles, and innumerable excellent authors and famous politicians to write about; nobody can possibly work on all of the ones that might be of interest. Anyway, it's not a contest. And thank you for working on those ones you mentioned, while the rest of us were concentrating on other articles. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Some of you may have been, but most of those commenting here weren't. EricCorbett 21:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that there is no real limit on how many people can participate. This is the same with Administrators. It's not like the "glass ceiling" in a company, where there are only a certain number of positions available and women are competing head-to-head with men for them. Wikipedia always needs more admins! It's not necessary for an editor to first express interest in being an admin; in fact, often people are approached by one or more other editors, who express confidence in them and suggest that they would make good admins. It's true that "diplomatic" editors have a better chance to be accepted, and maybe that's a good idea, since "speak-and-act first, think later types" can do a lot of damage with the admin tools. Surely, though, there are plenty of calm, rational, experienced female editors who could be nominated. I would like to point out, though, that since becoming an admin earlier this year I actually have done less content creation, because I have to do my own deletions, historymerges, etc., and it all takes time. Also, there's no point in nominating or supporting at RfA someone without the right mix of experience, just because they are female, because RfA is not an election, and you have to give good reasons. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
RfA is a popularity contest though, and it would be relatively easy for a project such as this one to force a nomination through regardless of its merits. EricCorbett 19:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
This topic area could do with a lot less grandstanding.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@Anne Delong, @Eric Corbett; The question about the value of the stats of a 15% women editor ratio is that they are good enough for Jimmy Wales to use them in his BBC interview last month regarding failing to reach Sue Gardner's gender goals by 2015. The "glass ceiling" issue remains the most confrontational issue because even if Wikipedia finds the magic formula to attract more women editors, the business management theory and experience still teaches that if you don't fix the management problem first, then the old management (85% male) will just continue, either knowingly or unknowingly, to drive away the new women editors the same as they have been doing for years and years (long-term systemic bias). Good intentions, even best intentions such as those expressed above of being open-minded and diplomatic, have been shown again and again in business management models to fail if the "glass ceiling" problem is not addressed first. Wikipedia continues to fail to attract women editors, and without addressing the "glass ceiling" issue first of getting more women administrators on board, then Wikipedia as a whole fails to achieve the gender parity which Jimmy Wales encourages by calling for "doubling down" on the issue of increasing the number of women editing Wikipedia. The short section on "Active Nomination of Women Administrators" posted at the top of this Talk section should be added to this WikiProject Page. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Jimmy using a statistic does not make it right! All the best: RichFarmbrough, 22:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC).
It does in many people's eyes, which is why I regard Jimmy Wales as one of the most toxic influences on WP. He's got no idea about writing an encyclopedia, and instead chooses to concentrate on trying to build some kind of hopeless Ayn Rand inspired Utopia. WP would be better off without him. EricCorbett 23:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
Eric Corbett - this project can muster maybe half a dozen !votes at AfD, maybe it would do better at RfA, but I don't see why. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 22:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC).
This is a singularly poor place to try out "jokes", the response to which which is culturally conditioned and can only foment misunderstanding and needless distractions. SPECIFICOtalk 23:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure who was joking, it certainly wasn't me. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 00:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC).
I was referring to this [6], which can appear to be a tactic to evade responsibility for ones actions. At any rate, it's best to let it lie. SPECIFICOtalk 00:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't think it's best to let it lie at all. Throughout written history women have not been allowed to speak out about their place in society. Now that we have finally arrived at a place where we are able to speak, we no longer need to resort to sneaky tactics, and it mars the feminist perspective to say that it is acceptable. I have long spoken out for woman's rights, but I would not join this project because it appears that Carol, who seems to be the main spokesperson, sees this as a battle of the women against the men, who have been repeatedly characterized as wild dogs who have staked the territory out to keep females away. That sort of attitude will only force "the men" to dig their heels in and become defensive--And I don't blame them for that. Gandydancer (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
First of all, the "we" gives me the impression you are a woman. First time I knew it. I don't see any indication on your user page, unless I missed it.
Regarding the now deleted "Mad Dog" entry on my user page. I'd forgotten about it and just removed it as a dated reaction to extreme hostility some guys had towards the whole gender gap issue on Jimmy Wales talk page in July. The comment was directed at that subset of hostile males and the minority of extremely territorial males at wikipedia. My focus was - and is - "We seem to forget that humans have both an upper brain (the cerebrum) which is relatively rational and a lower brain (the brainstem and cerebellum) that deals with automatic and unconscious functions." AKA "rationality", which seemed lacking in those discussions.
If male editors can throw the word "c*nt" around loosely and defend it, why can't females engage in a little provocative analysis of why they do it?
The problem of males reacting in hostility to things they think women are thinking at this project seems to be a bigger problem than my joke about recruiting women editors, written as a nervous reaction to constant and unrelenting criticism by a few males of this project. I guess I fell for the bait! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, since you insist (to your detriment) on prolonging this thread... Let's be honest. You were not making a "joke". You backtracked and called it a joke when you were challenged. That kind of dishonest battleground behavior is damaging to this Project. If you can't control yourself, please consider departing the Project and leaving the work to those of us who have come here to collaborate on this important initiative. SPECIFICOtalk 16:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Lesson in human psychology: sneaky people don't announce their sneaky plans on public spots where people who love to jump on every single thing they say are going to jump all over their sneaky plot. They do it in private emails, etc. Geeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzz.... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
You did. EricCorbett 17:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
We need to start treating hospitality as a first class virtue, and see that it is the seed of everything else. Alberto Brandolini said “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” It has a big cost when someone treats others badly. If someone is ruining the hospitality of a place by using their liberty in a certain way, we need to stop making excuses, and start on the path of exclusion. If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly.
This part is also worth quoting at length, as it has to do with how you set up spaces (like this one) so that people can participate positively:
The slides and notes from that session are up. And one of them is to think carefully about what we do in super-public spaces versus how we act in invite-only space or quite private spaces, and to think about what those spaces are. I think of the spaces that are more secret or private as places where certain people can sort of rest and vent and collaborate, and ask the questions they feel afraid of asking in public, so they can gain the strength and confidence to go further out, into the invite-only spaces or the very public spaces. I think we’ve seen this in my own experience at Hacker School, and we see that also the invite-only spaces, or spaces where everybody coming in agrees to follow the same rules so it’s a place where you feel safer -- these are like tidepools, places where certain kinds of people and certain kinds of behaviour can be nurtured and grown so that it’s ready to go out into the wider ocean.
We can also modify existing spaces. We can set up informal but real contracts or promises with specific people or in specific larger spaces. I’ve done this. I’ve said “Hey, for this conversation – I know in the past we’ve had trouble assuming good faith of each other. Will you try – I will try extra hard to assume good faith of you if you’ll assume good faith of me.” And that actually made things go a lot better.
Assuming good faith is just one of the recent problems that has been side-tracking this project.
I heard Sumana's speech at the time she made it. I was particularly taken by the notion of hospitality, and that has changed the way I look at some of our written and unwritten conventions. That said, we might have differing opinions on who the bs generators are. I am 100% certain that there have been and will be more examples of gender bias. I'd like to be part of the effort to identify it and root it out. Yet when I see charges made, and polite requests for evidence, the evidence is often scant, or false positives or "in progress". When those asking for evidence are rudely addressed, who is the bs generator?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Sphilbrick: Above you see there is a section on the Draft resources page which presents lots of evidence. Your post made me realize we'll just have to go through section by section and then you can study the "evidence" yourself. So see above What needs removing from research section. Gathering and presenting evidence is something I take seriously myself. So feel free to report on what you see in this first round! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)
(ec) @Sphilbrick: Interesting questions. Part of the answer lies in the goals of the project itself: to address the gender gap problem. Like everyone else, the members of the group have limited time available for volunteering, and have chosen to put their energies into this area. The question of systemic bias and gender has been addressed extensively by the foundation, not to mention the criticism of Wikipedia's gender problem in a number of publications. If you want to know more, you can read the article on Systemic bias or the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan. Carol has also thoughtfully linked to articles at the Geek feminism wiki [7] and [8].
If someone does not understand the systemic bias, or does not think the gender gap is a problem, you would think they would find another area to contribute, instead of trolling this group. Are math groups constantly distracted by individuals demanding to have the concept of integers explained, and complaining that they have been rudely addressed unless the group re-diverts their energy to engaging with repeated demands for explanations of square roots?
It may also be helpful to realize that the focus of the group seems to be in examining the research and developing strategies based on current understanding, and not on polemics. I probably don't have to remind you that anything based on the scientific method, as contrasted with belief-based systems, often advances slowly and in a piecemeal fashion. Elaborate "proofs" are often not available, even if there were, demanding someone else stop whatever they are doing go look them up for you is not particularly helpful. Better to look yourself, or ask them if they know where you can look. Framing the question in terms of "proofs" is also implies that the group's goals can not be validated until every single objection made by male outsiders can be answered to their satisfaction--in other words, it is the pointy way of framing a question that is often objectionable, rather than the question itself.
A final issue is the way some individuals are intersecting with women's issues elsewhere on the project. What would you think if someone who was notorious for dropping the n-bomb at every opportunity suddenly showed up at Barack Obama's BLP to make "polite requests for evidence" of racism? A quick look at current arbcom request might be enlightening in that regard. —Neotarf (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You misrepresent the issue. If a charge of "entrenched sexism" is made – nothing to do with the gender gap per se – then it is not unreasonable to ask for some evidence in support of said claim. Unless you're attempting to dishonestly push a feminist agenda of course. This project would do better to stick to the verifiable facts instead of hyperbolic rhetoric. EricCorbett 18:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Is there anyone in the entire project who does not believe you have nothing but contempt for women? [9] How can your continued monopolizing of this project page be viewed as anything but trolling. —Neotarf (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Let's face a couple of facts here Neotarf. If you had made that completely baseless comment about anyone else you would now be blocked, or at least warned. The fact that you remain free to propagate such lies here tells its own story. EricCorbett 20:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't exactly see you rushing in with a lot of diffs to prove your point, Eric. On the other hand, my link pretty much speaks for itself. —Neotarf (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
One more comment from you in that same vein and I'll be raising an AN/I report for personal attacks. EricCorbett 21:13, 4 September 2014I(UTC)
Ah, I see there would be no point, as you've retired. What are you doing here then? EricCorbett 21:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
What do I do here? These days I mostly perform small tasks for the Signpost. I somehow ended up with this page watchlisted after I posted some Signpost-related content here. So, what are you doing here. —Neotarf (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
One challenge is that many of the contributors conflate systemic bias and gender gap. That confusion is starkly noticeable in the title - note "WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force" as if gender gap were a specific case of systemic bias. It isn't. The gender gap is an easily identifiable phenomenon (though the causes and solutions are not yet quite so clear). In contrast, the gender bias issue is not the same thing. They are, to be sure, related, but one can have a gender gap without necessarily having a gender bias. Both deserve thoughtful identification of solutions, but the list of solutions are not likely to be exactly the same. If anyone is wondering how dense I must be to ask for examples, please note I am NOT asking for examples of the gender gap—they are ubiquitous. I am asking for example of gender bias, which I believe exists, but I'd like to see the examples before jumping to conclusion regarding solutions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Just offhand I would point you to Wikipedia:Systemic bias and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias; the articles cited there should point you to more concrete examples. Or you might try talking privately to some female editors, they might be willing to say more offline than in a hostile editing environment such as this page. —Neotarf (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I've spoken to many female editors offline, and pretty much all of them find aspects of this project to be insulting to women. EricCorbett 20:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
If that is the case, why aren't they here speaking for themselves? —Neotarf (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
They are. EricCorbett 21:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Diffs, or it didn't happen. —Neotarf (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
You really need to look at all the postings here, not just focus on mine. EricCorbett 22:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
As a female editor, Neotarf, I find aspects of this project insulting to women. I also think that it can be difficult, even pointless, to raise viewpoints that differ from the strongest voice(s) here - and at the moment those voices are established members of this project, not "interlopers" as has been suggested. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
So, Nikkimaria, what direction do you think the project should take, and is there anything specifically that would make you want to participate? (And BTW, I hope you pick up the mop again some day.) —Neotarf (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Just a couple of general thoughts/replies: The reasons I don't post here or AN/I etc are primarily because I would rather be working on content; I do find many comments here to be insulting to women and several make me ashamed to admit being female, especially posts that I feel are tendentious and activist; and as to Neotarf's question to Eric: "Is there anyone in the entire project who does not believe you [Eric] have nothing but contempt for women", I'll put my hand up and state (yet again): Eric is terrific to work with and he has most certainly never treated me with contempt. He has always treated me with nothing but the greatest respect. He has gone out of his way to be helpful, considerate and often gently cajoled/encouraged me back to editing when I've felt like walking away. My whole day was wasted yesterday watching the comments generated by the nonsensical report at AN/I - wouldn't everyone's time be better spent working on content rather than all the forum shopping, slinging of accusations etc that seems to be going on? I know mine would be. SagaciousPhil - Chat 07:47, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Echoing Nikkimaria, "I find aspects of this project insulting to women" and what SagaciousPhil has to say. There is nothing about this project that would make me want to join. It needs critical friends but as dissent results in a trip to ANI it isn't likely to get them. Perhaps the vociferous should spend their not inconsiderable energy and time writing or improving an article, that's what I should be doing but I really can't be bothered. J3Mrs (talk) 08:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Teahouse
My sense is that Teahouse is very useful as an institution for getting people up to speed as content writers at WP, helping them to learn the ropes the culture. Perhaps this project could study whether the gender mix of participants there varies significantly from 85:15 and, if it does, try to understand why. Actual solution of the gender gap starts with understanding what it is that helps people who drive-by edit stop and stay and become active volunteers, and working to improve the gender mix of newcomers. Teahouse might be an important tool for this. As of now: no data. Carrite (talk) 23:20, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm not a member of the GGTF, but if anyone is wanting an article to keep an eye on which is being threatened with serious amounts of misogynistic content, it would be useful if people could watchlist Zoe Quinn and Depression Quest. A quick read of the Zoe Quinn talkpage will probably tell you all you need to know. Cheers, Black Kite (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Women.com
Women.com, a new invite-only website. People are asked to sign in via Facebook, or request an invitation on Twitter. Article here. SlimVirgin(talk) 23:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I've realized that what I wrote above is ambiguous, so just to be clear, when I said "people are asked to sign in via Facebook," I meant that women.com was asking people to do that. SlimVirgin(talk) 03:16, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Slim has the right idea – I'd honestly take it off-wiki. Create a blog/forum for the GGTF analogous to Wikipediocracy, inform scholars and journalists, publicise why you're taking that step (a link to the current status of this talk page will suffice ...), and make the forum publicly viewable.
Reserve the right to determine who can or cannot join, based on people's Wikipedia contributions and/or scholarly/journalistic work done elsewhere. The audience should never be the people who are the problem, because they just waste your energy; it should be scholars, journalists and interested members of the public.
That way, you might actually hear yourself talking, and other people might be able to hear what you're saying. AndreasJN466 10:42, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The real question is why do Eric/Two Kinds/SPECIFICO feel that because they have a political difference with a project they can hector it down to a tiny scope they are comfortable with -- or even out of existence, if necessary?
What about Wikiproject Disability or Wikiproject LGBT where there is a strong affirmative action view on bringing in more editors from those groupings as well as on supporting articles about, among other agendas, laws regarding hiring, special facilities, etc? Are they also to be politicized and every single one of their posts criticized ad nauseam by people with different views?
I assume Eric and Two Kinds and SPECIFICO do not have a double standard view on those projects Vis-à-vis this one. So will they be taking on those projects' "political agenda" next and demanding they only work very narrowly on projects and articles approved by the three of them??
Getting more women involved in projects is a mainstream view - undermining projects that want to do so is a fringe view. This is one of the view times I've been on the mainstream side, so let me enjoy it in peace!
We don't have to go out and tell the world. The whole world is watching. Watching to see if Wikipedia will join the mainstream on this issue. And the whole world is reporting on the personalities who are holding it back. Are these guys trying to become "famous fringe editors"? Geez... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:28, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I have seen other Wikipedia language groups that user Facebook quite effectively, and you would not have to exclude men from a FB group. If Wikipedia is not able to provide you with a space where you are able to do what you need to do, simply move on. —Neotarf (talk) 11:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
There is one listed in resources, but it currently lets men in. :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 11:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Judging by the contributions here from men like Rich, Tony, and Andreas, you would want a forum where you can benefit from male participation. You would also want to be very accessible to the wider public, where your new members are more likely to come from, and who might lurk a bit before deciding to join. I'm pretty sure you can uninvite someone from a FB group if they start causing disruption. Andreas would know, he's a member of a Wikipedia FB group. —Neotarf (talk) 12:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
FWIW, uninviting people is indeed easy on FB. AndreasJN466 12:22, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
The problem with the Gendergap list is that it has zero public impact beyond the group of people subscribed to it. Same with Facebook groups, in my experience. They're good for networking, but useless for publicity work. AndreasJN466 12:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh—it says "No men allowed". OK. Tony(talk) 12:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
And since the invitees come from Facebook accounts, where you must choose between "male" or "female", you cannot join women.com if your gender is ambiguous or anonymous. —Neotarf (talk) 13:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@Neotarf: there are many more gender options than those on Facebook now. EvergreenFir(talk) Please {{re}} 15:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
So do they allow transgendered individuals who identify as female to join? What if they haven't come out to their family on Facebook yet and don't want to? If this is some sort of non-trans thing, I am easily against it. Tutelary (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Ah, so they've changed it, but not sure how often the average FB user keeps checking and rechecking those parameters once they're set up. And women.com is still women only. —Neotarf (talk) 15:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I totally agree with Andreas above. There's nothing wrong with a gender organizing task per se; it becomes problematic when it takes the form of a WikiProject. Start your own message board like Wikipediocracy, Zoloft at WPO has published a very helpful beginner's guide as part of a thread there if anyone is interested. Carrite (talk) 23:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Andreas, thanks for posting that. It's a good idea. SlimVirgin(talk) 03:18, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
If you go off-wiki then beware WP:MEAT. - Sitush (talk) 12:19, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
It's not that I have anything against women-only groups: when you discreetly observe women-only gatherings, you can palpably feel their relief and delight at discourse that can more freely encompass what males are prevented from understanding by their gender. But there's a problem if you want to use such forums to speed up the glacially slow transfer of power from men to women. One of the ironies of the gender gap is that getting men on board is simply a faster way to proceed. We all know that the way to do this is to convince them that more equitable gender relations are in their own interests, whether we're talking about a wiki, the economy, corporations, or indeed men's own pscyhological well-being in the end. Tony(talk)
Hi Tony, there was a misunderstanding above about women.com. No one has suggested using it for gender-gap issues, or starting a women-only forum. I completely agree with you that we need (and want) men to help. SlimVirgin(talk) 16:15, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Exactly. We just don't want so many guys participating in such a way that women's voices are ignored or drowned out, or worse. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Nor do men want to see a small number of women drowning out thousands of other women editors who could help support this Project. SPECIFICOtalk 19:24, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Women.com could indeed be a good way to recruit women editors. I don't think it is proposed as a forum to replace this one/GGML - please advise if anyone is suggesting that. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC).
Wales on user page bans and civility; need civility caucus/sub-project?
I've just started reading "Jimbo" Wales talk page the last couple months and there are discussions there that clarify a lot of issues that have been rather mysterious to me. Two current ones are:
1. I think the WMF can do little directly. It would be pretty difficult for them to get directly involved in banning uncivil users, and hard for them to do a good job of it. One reason for this is that extreme cases are quite easy and the community does a good job of bans. The difficult cases are people who go around causing disruption and abusing people but who have some kind of support network and produce good content. In these cases, community opinion often ends up divided. It would be hard for the Foundation to know what to do.
2. The Foundation could help us by doing more studies on what causes people to leave the community. I think what is often lacking is the empirical evidence needed to convince some fence-sitters how much damage some people are doing. If you write 3 featured articles but chase away through your incivility 10 potentially great editors who would have written 30 featured articles, then you are a net loss to the project. I think that's often the case with some of these characters, but we have no way at the moment to empirically demonstrate it.
3. The English Wikipedia community can beef up policies in various ways to make it clearer that "producing good content" does not give one a free pass to abuse, insult, or harass others through uncivil behavior.
4. I recommend that people who care about this issue work hard to think about how we might improve our ArbCom processes so that more cases can be handled and in a quicker fashion. Barring that, I would say being careful to elect "civility hawks" to the ArbCom would be useful. When a user who has a long history of uncivil interactions with others comes before ArbCom, it should often be a simple open and shut case. For a variety of reasons (including that policy isn't strong enough in some areas so ArbCom can feel constrained) that sometimes doesn't happen, and this has follow-on repercussions with behavior across the site as uncivil people feel safe to carry on.--[[User:Jimbo Wales|Jimbo Wales]] ([[User talk:Jimbo Wales#top|talk]]) 10:19, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Some of this is in regards "civility" in the Terms of Service which technically the Foundation could enforce and I think does when it comes to things like harassment/death threats through the email system, some copyright violations or egregious BLP problems community hasn't dealt with, probably other issues I can't think of off hand. But he explains why it would be difficult for the Foundation to enforce terms of service on relentless incivility.
Of course, getting more Admins and ArbCom members committed to enforcing civility would help, as Wales suggests.
Maybe we need a separate caucus or Wiki sub-project or something to support more civil editors assuming such positions. Maybe a sub-project of Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention??
This issue doesn't affect only women. It also affects people of ethnic or racial minorities whose user names or pages, editing interests or comments make that clear and who thus may end being treated more uncivility than otherwise. And it affects older people, experts, academics, etc. who don't have time or patience for being the butt of uncivil remarks or behavior.
That's as far as my thoughts go for now. Any other ideas on that? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Women in mathematics
Just to put this on the radar: User:Irrawaddy0 – an Australian Laureate Fellow, no less – contacted me last year concerning the very incomplete state of WP articles on women mathematicians. I've been a bit lazy about it, unfortunately. You might also find this video interesting.
I think that possibility had been discussed before, but first time an example shown. (Though at some point later I remembered I had taken it on a few years back for a while on another Wikiproject, but later resigned and did same thing in non-official capacity to avoid complaints.)
Anyway, as noted in brief introductory section it's mostly housekeeping: The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers.
Definitely something to think about, especially as we get to a more coherent/happy/mature project phase. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I saw that this discussion was closed with no result. Well there is always WP:ARBCOM, or we can all have a discussion here on what to do next. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
[Insert: Arbcom usually is more trouble than it's worth. Social pressure is where it is at. If all the individuals unhappy with certain individual's behavior explained that nicely at their talk page, maybe they would reform. I know people have felt free to complain to me so often that it just became harassment and I had to ban them, often repeatedly. However, I think we can do it in a nicer way. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:03, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it would help a lot if people would try not to say anything that's predictably provocative, or at least not unnecessarily so. I'm not trying to stifle discussion, but it would be good to keep the tone inclusive and welcoming. A second thing that would help is not responding to baiting.
Carol, if you're worried about your resources page being edited inappropriately, you can keep it in your user space and post a link to the task force page. That would solve that issue. SlimVirgin(talk) 16:33, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
I think that's an excellent suggestion. If Carolmooredc keeps her suggested references in her own user space, there will be no need for discussion or consensus. I think that such links provide a good way to encourage editors to share without concern about their efforts being judged here. SPECIFICOtalk 16:39, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
In case anyone doesn't know, the ANI case was about the anti-gender group who have been disrupting the discussions here. Several of these people have made public statements that the group should not exist at all. The anti-gender project group made a proposal to ban Carol, which failed. I then offered to make a formal ban proposal the next day, in order to give the anti-project group time to consider whether they would agree to stay away from the project voluntarily. However the thread had been closed, and has now been closed twice by the same admin. [10] Much is often made in Arbcom discussions about consensus and community norms, and these discussions often result in getting closer to solving thorny community problems, but in this case the discussion was not allowed to play out. For any female editors who are concerned about being harassed, the answer is probably in the last word before the thread was closed: "All this commotion would've been avoided, if all editors had chosen to hide ther RL genders from Wikipedia." Wikipedia is not ready for women publicly editing as women. And now I shall trundle off and see if I can get someone to bring me a beer, so I do not have to go to the refrigerator for myself. Cheers. —Neotarf (talk) 21:27, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
"All this commotion would've been avoided, if all editors had chosen to hide ther RL genders from Wikipedia." My eyes rolled at that one. The only way we are safe is if we wear a Burqa? Instead of bemoaning that I didn't use a gender neutral name originally, I've been coming around to the position of saying "Let's start being female and proud." After all one can keep the generder neutral name and use a female name. Like [[User:RTC20066|Ruth TC]] or [[User:RTC20066|Max's granny]] or whatever makes the point. The more there are of us, the more it becomes obvious we are moving to critical mass of females (in addition of course to whatever the numbers are in the next Wikimedia Foundation survey they announce). Imagine the shock if all sorts of respected and even "high power" individuals turned out to be females... (LOL moment.)
Women editors should not take offense if they give no indication they are women in their user names and then are called guys. Editors are not mind readers and we can't go to the talk pages and histories of every posting editor and figure it out. After getting tired of writing s/he, and him/her, I went through a phase of calling everyone she/her. I got tired of the complaints from the guys. So assuming its a "he" unless a woman is willing to spell it out just became the easiest thing to do. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:38, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I think if you want to fight sexism you should try to understand some of the biology of antigen presentation. When our cells try to fight off an invader, they chop it up into little bits that are self-contained and easy to recognize, and when they spot one that doesn't belong, they present it in a standard way to make clear that something has to be done about it. In the same way, it is important to try to spot an epitope, something that is part of the sexism problem that stands out that people can react to it. For example, that is what "All this commotion would've been avoided, if all editors had chosen to hide ther RL genders from Wikipedia." is above. However, that said, this particular epitope labels one voter, GoodDay, and not the admins you are talking about, so the question is, can you pick out something similar that expresses what is different about them? There's also, always, the question of whether you should react against an epitope, or treat it as a self-antigen. What the editor actually said was that if all editors lacked gender labels then it wouldn't matter. Now, that could be done - whatever machinery identifies editor sex as a preference could be shut off. Editors could be recruited to say s/he (my wacky idea was WP:Xe but it got panned pretty universally as soon as I suggested it). Sex could indeed be pushed to the back burner. The question is, does suppressing sex identification suppress sexism, or contribute to it by false assumptions or a failure to take diversity into account? I certainly don't know. Wnt (talk) 23:41, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, the Xe individual, I got it now ;-). (Using such gender free descriptions another option.) But of course since Wikipedia is a fairly free site, people can choose whether to identify their sex or gender. And they can encourage or discourage others from doing so. All I know is that I personally started as a "proud female" who hardly ever, if ever, used an anonymous or gender free handle. Then I ended up kicking myself for every letting anyone know the truth. But now with this group I'm feeling like, wow, let's just tell the world. Burn the gender free burqa! If others want to join me, great. If they don't, that's their choice.
But women shouldn't keep complaining others (male or female) call them he if they do not identify as a woman in their user names. And if it sometimes takes editors a couple times to remember, be patient. There are a lot of editors out there and it can be hard to keep straight who's female and who isn't without a clear user name or a data base. Obviously this goes for guys too, but I haven't had problems with that since I stopped calling everyone who I wasn't sure was a guy s/he and she... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:41, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
I try to address/mention editors via their wiki-names. I rarely use she or she said; he or he said. My PoV, is that there's no such thing as a male editor or a female editor. We're all editors, period. PS: I neither support or oppose this Taskforce :) GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
CMDC, I believe you may be confusing bias with prejudice. SPECIFICOtalk 01:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, also Template:Gender-neutral offers a different option that is straightforward and particularly well illustrated. Wnt (talk) 05:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
An idea: get more women to goto projects where it has been shown there is a majority interest
I am mainly over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga, we have a sailor moon task force for example. Another one are My Little Pony related articles or football related articles where half of it's fanbase is female. This I my idea, promote the projects that females show interest in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Great. Every little bit helps. And hopefully as some of the younger women mature, go to college, and get into the heavier duty issues of economics/politics/history/science, etc. they'll become kick ass editors on those topics. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Its a start, using social media sites such as facebook and twitter would also be beneficial to get new editors in. As for older editors facebook would be better for that as new studies show that most middle aged women and men use the site as opposed to teens and college students. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh god, not My Little Pony! There is a Brony problem over there, vandal central! I'm sorry Carol, I think this person is trying to troll the forum too. (Anyone who says "females" - really?) and football-related articles having "half its fanbase" Naah. We're being trolled. Montanabw(talk) 22:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
WP:AGF please, here is a reference for the football fact [11]. As for bronies yeah there are going to be vandals out there just as much as there could possibly be some good editors out there, its an easy fix, block the vandals keep the good editors around =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It's important to say "females" and "males", if we do not want to exclude younger editors. That is part of the reason I have chosen to use those terms exclusively on these pages. They also apply more ubiquitously to articles "Anne of Green Gables" is in no way a "women's article" but I can be argued to be a "female article" - this also hints at the third reason: readership. Fourthly we also need to have in the backs of our minds other wikis, notably Simple and Wikipedias in languages where the paucity of articles is such that the (now almost proverbial) classes of high school children can add a lot of value, especially if they are bilingual. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 02:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC).
Agreed, I also feel we should be targeting towards younger mid teen - college aged editors as it will pump new fresh ideas into Wikipedia more with a younger generation. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:27, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Women have as widely varied interests as men do. There is no need to pigeonhole a particular editor or try to guess what will interest her. If you want to encourage new women editors to stay around and be productive, the same things work as do for men editors: Greet them, invite them to the WP:Teahouse, offer to help, ask them what they are interested in and then point out the appropriate WikiProjects. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Im not talking about single editors though, I am talking about getting female editors to join projects based on what they like to do. it has been shown that women like certain things more than guys do and other things that normally guys would think "That's crazy" women have the same interest in as men. Seeing we are focusing on getting more female editors to Wikipedia I think we should work off what we have, this is what social websites use to draw new users in, the stats. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
As for the teahouse that approach works sometimes, I joined Wikipedia though wanting to find out something on something I liked, when I started editing I just started editing, the draw was an interest I saw. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I only started editing because someone had created an article about me and separately about the peace group I was in plus I did one about a friend. A few years later one of the two workshops I did was for a group with a special interest and 12 people showed. If I'd been more experienced and more on top of infrastructure, I might have kept some of them editing. Of course finding areas that both are a special interest with lots of fans AND have a large pool of articles can be difficult. So we do have to emphasize the broader approach; but when we find pockets of potential editors among some relevant fan base we certainly should go for it. Thanks for your work. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Welcome =). Then we should ask ourselves "Why did I join Wikipedia?" if you can answer that then it might inspire some ideas. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps. But how likely would you think the answer to be that "I thought there were were too few female editors on Wikipedia"? EricCorbett 23:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Guys can be asked too in this case, or older female users such as User:Alison, it will get an idea on why people join here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Are you now suggesting that the reasons male and female editors join are different? I thought we were all here to build an encyclopedia? EricCorbett 00:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
No, im saying that I am sure guys join Wikipedia for many of the same reasons females do so it would be beneficial to ask guys too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
If you're so interested in the question, Eric, why don't you read some of the studies that have been done on it. —Neotarf (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC
I have, but they're just one-off studies. As I'm sure you'll be aware, as the experienced editor that you are, that only review articles are appropriate to draw any conclusions from. Do you have any links to such review articles? EricCorbett 01:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you read some of the previous threads. Or ask the project members, if there are any left you haven't alienated. This stuff has already been discussed. —Neotarf (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
{Insert: or do your own research. The Draft Resources page has been linked here enough an at ANI. There's even a discussion section above that you easily can navigate from. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 02:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Uh. Way to stereotype. The first post just basically assumes that any female editor interested in Anime is going to only be interested in Sailor Moon or that of course women will be more interested in little ponies or something like that. I think it's a better idea to not assume that women will automatically want to edit only a few topics - a surprise, but many women have quite varied interests. Are they supposed to only edit soap operas, fashion topics and food? Follow Anne Delong's advice ... and quit trying to figure out places to pigeonhole women editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Again... WP:AGF I made my very first edit here and already got slammed by three editors and you wonder why people with new ideas are reluctant to edit here? Im thinking larger picture here, of course all women don't like certain things just as much as guys don't all like manly things that is not my point at all and im not trying to stereotype anything but to go by what draws people in the most, it has been proven though that a majority of women for example like to clothes shop. We are trying to find more female editors remember? If we can lure some to the projects we have here on Wikipedia over time the gap will be filled more. Thank you btw Carolmooredc, for hearing me out on this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Some people think "pigeon hole", I think entry points to a long and winding road with many many branches as one follows one interests as one learns and grows and develops new interests. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I knew an editor here left now that used to only be here because she loved to edit anime and manga related articles, not everyone here has to edit everything or join 10 different wikiprojects, sticking with what you like to edit I feel is a draw for people here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I really believe that treating people who are members of a group as though they are all the same is the wrong approach, but even if it were appropriate, we should consider that the small percentage of women who flourish in the current Wikipedia editing environment may not be typical of women in general. If we reach out into other online groups to recruit more women editors, do we want to approach those who are likely to enjoy editing in the current environment (which is somewhat more techie, rule-laden and goal-oriented than social media sites such as Facebook)? There seems little point in recruiting the look-what-I-found-in-my-refrigerator or watch-my-fifty-cute-cat-videos set unless we change the environment to be more like those other sites (I hope not). —Anne Delong (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi Anne, someone removed your name by mistake, but it's back now. SlimVirgin(talk) 02:56, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Missing articles
If anyone's interested in missing articles that would probably exist already if we had more women editors, then look at Mastectomy#Types. At least half of those are common surgical procedures with distinct histories, and easily qualify for separate articles. We have a stub at Radical mastectomy, four short paragraphs at Lumpectomy, and a good start at Preventive mastectomy... but Simple mastectomy is a redlink, Modified radical mastectomy is a redirect, Skin-sparing mastectomy is a redlink, and the main article says almost nothing about the actual surgical procedure.
I've read that Back labor affects a quarter of pregnant women (also known as half the mothers interested in providing contraction-by-contraction replays of their own birth experiences at baby showers, from my observation ;-) and is a prime driver of epidural anesthesia. So that's a medical complication happening in about a million births each year in the US alone–but it's a red link at Wikipedia. I kind of think that if we had not just more women, but specifically more mothers as editors, that we would have an article on that by now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Ouch. And we don't have an article on Gender diversity, although we do have one on Cultural diversity. Looks to me as though there's enough material out there; allegedly, per Google books, 10,500 for "gender diversity" organization, which probably means a lot fewer than that, but enough to make a start. Some research affirms its value. Here's one with a qualification: "The overall relationship between the gender diversity of these [top management] teams and firm performance was positive, although this favourable effect was present only in firms whose strategies focused on innovation." [12]Novickas (talk) 20:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I think it's also possible to get some progress by asking WikiProjects. I mean, I'm not even a member here (I honestly don't think about these issues much) nor do I edit about video games, but after seeing a surprising news report I posted a thread [13] that I think persuaded some of the people who did some work at Women and video games. It's not a featured article, but at least it's progress. Wnt (talk) 23:28, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
I quite by accident stumbled across this thread and was rather surprised to see we don't have an article on back labor, which I have now started. My mind is rather blown right now about how this illustrates the effect of the gender gap on wikipedia. Its not an article I would have thought of starting, but would have assumed already existed for 10 years.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:22, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
To me these look like articles that would probably exist already if we had more surgical editors - it's usually a fairly thinly covered area in WP I find. Johnbod (talk) 19:30, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
That may be true for mastectomy procedures, but back labor is a very common occurrence in childbirth and discussed in every non-surgical pregnancy book on earth -- but I'll say even the research literature on that subject is sparse enough to make me think it also reflects gender bias. If men had periods, menstrual cramps would have been eliminated long ago (cf. [14]). And Gender diversity is not a surgical procedure either. I wonder what other topics suffer due to the "86/14" gap; its a fascinating question. I saved French Silk from a prod recently; a 1992 romance novel that was a bestseller. Romance novels may be light fiction, but they are very popular[15]; we have tons of articles on any bestseller a male ever liked, to be sure.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Gender gap mailing list
Someone asked if any males were subscribed to the GGML - I am not but I have read it all up to a certain date. I can't remember much except I think a discussion about a "rape scene" in Bladerunner, I think it was. I checked the talk page discussions which were interminable, and eventually acquired a copy of the movie (directors cut - possibly the wrong version) to see for myself. It is certainly the case at first blush that the GGML acted as a canvassing tool, just as this page did on recent AfD's. However that is not the purpose of the GGML, nor was it the reason the issue it was raised there.
GGML is archived openly, so anyone who wants to can go and read it. If I do decide to revisit it and re-read the entire archive I may consider compiling a digest.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 00:04, 7 September 2014 (UTC).
When I read through it looking for diffs I also found a lot of proposals (some of which later came to fruition) and personal anecdotes that were fascinating and I copied to files. Haven't decided what, if anything, to do about the latter, anyway. Perhaps quote in an essay. Just another item for a long list of possible projects. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:30, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Gender gap on Twitter
There are two Wikipedia Gender Gap accounts on Twitter that people might want to follow:
Hmmm, I thought SaidOnWP might be a plant to trap us, but seeing recent quotes, looks like it's for real. I'll still just bookmark it and peek from time to time. The other one seems a good way to get out positive info about positive efforts. Ada Initiative's "F-Word" - Feminism graphic - is pretty ironic in light of various goings on lately. "What the... Feminism! is going on!"??? Well, one doesn't have to adopt a label to do the right thing, that's for sure. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
Wales page definitely a better place to bring up ideas about a BBC style monitoring system than here. Wikipedia:Role of Jimmy Wales notes that he is an Admin so has the same powers to block or indefinitely ban users as other admins. He's only use it once. What self-control!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Wales made other pro-civility statements today[16] and yet another editor stated that, in effect, "big content producers have ra right to be as uncivil as they like" and those who aren't big content providers have no right to complain. In response I put up a home-made "Wikibreak" box on my user page. It's a polite way of saying "I'm too aggravated and disgusted to edit much any more." Creating perhaps more positive boxes is an option for all of us. Maybe I'll make it more positive tomorrow. (Like making one for hiring trained mediators.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Notice of discussion at ANI
The task force is coming up regularly in this discussion [17] at ANI, so members may be interested. Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Interesting article in the current NY Magazine, with some new RS material that can be added to her article here. SPECIFICOtalk 18:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
User Friendliness
I think the biggest barrier to editing Wikipedia for people is nothing more than simple intimidation. They're scared by the site, the discussions, the tone, the user interface, and everything else. It isn't just women, either - I know tons of men who are more than good enough with technology to edit Wikipedia, at least on a basic level. But even I, who have been around for nearly a decade now, don't really know all the UI tricks. And I've made over 3,000 edits!
I think that if you make the whole experience more user friendly, you'll see the gender gap close. Likewise, it will encourage a broader diversity of people in general to edit, which is good for other reasons. I think a few things need to happen:
1) A better editing UI. The UI right now is not very good at all. The basic UI it gives you is a bunch of symbols; I'd imagine most people don't even realize that there is a drop-down menu. Many folks may not realize what Wiki Markup means, and even if they do, are they likely to know what things like ref or redirect or s or sup or sub or any of the other bits mean? Likely not. Let alone all the bracketing rules. The present UI doesn't explain itself well at all; I have to ask people how to do things all the time, and I've been here for years. Why? Because I never bothered to read and absorb every single guide on the site. I just did what I needed to do. I still don't know how to construct a full proper reference tag, even though I've done it before, because I just had to crib off of others.
The base UI screen needs to have the most necessary things listed under their true names, not as symbols or whatever. It needs to call something a "wikilink", and when you click on it, pop up a window that says "enter article name". And then they enter the article name and POOF, it is in the article! Or you click on the reference button and it walks you through a little bit of how to properly reference things, with a little description of what a reliable source is and links to anything else which is relevant, as well as a basic window which lets them put in the URL, author name, website name, ect. This would make an enormous difference, I think.
2) People need to be less bitey towards newbies. This is a major issue, especially on established articles. I understand the frustration of dealing with a newbie, but people need to be nicer. People need to be more willing to note that users are not being civil and bring it up and deal with it appropriately. I suspect a lot of the nastiness would go away if a very small fraction of users were reprimanded or banned.
3) This especially includes admins, who are the most intimidating people for newbies to deal with. They need to come down and seem a lot less heavy-handed than they often do.
I think that this would all help. And #2 and 3 are fundamentally social issues which are difficult to deal with from a top-down level save by telling people to be nicer - though maybe a little note on the editing page for talk pages to remind people to be civil, polite, assume good faith, and not to bite back would help. Number 1, on the other hand, is very much a technological issue which can be solved. Titanium Dragon (talk) 09:53, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
Good suggestions overall, in tune with a lot of the research and opinion by people supporting closing the gap. I assume you mean Admins should give gentler blocks and bans? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:02, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't mean blocks and bans. I mean when admins roll in and lock an article or do similar administrative tasks, very frequently it seems very brusque and abrupt, even though it often is not. It also sometimes seems to be a solution to more user-based rather than page-based problems, where two users get into a fight over an article and the article is locked down but the user or users who caused the problem are not dealt with, which means that the nastiness remains while the ability to contribute does not, which is discouraging for people (and also encourages nastiness, because it works as a way to drive people off from an article which gets locked down for a week who just leave in frustration). Titanium Dragon (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2014 (UTC)
The underlying document is here. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 22:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC).
Effect of 16/84 ratio
This "male privilege" thing is something I don't get at all. But here's one simple question the answer to which may help the mad-dog male editors such as myself. Assuming the claimed 16% of female editors is somewhere in the right ballpark, what effect has that had on WP's content? Or what would be different if it was 50%? EricCorbett 18:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
We would have more articles of interest to women. That's pretty straight forward, given that it is a volunteer project and we edit those articles each of us is interested in. We would also have fewer (proportionally) editors calling each other a specific four letter word. Cough.--GRuban (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
But what would those articles be? The female editors I've worked with have been interested in stuff as wide ranging as industrial archaeology, coal mining, medieval history, mythology, transport ... the list goes on. I myself have written on some might consider to be girlie topics such as nursery rhymes and childrens' TV programmes. EricCorbett 20:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
(not sure where to put this but I'll just squeeze it in here) In my opinion, yes, it would change WP if we had more women editors. I'll give just one example. Without woman editor user:WhatamIdoing we would not have the excellent article Pink ribbon culture in which Waid is very critical of the "breast cancer culture" (and I am as well). While men understand the broader women's issues, I doubt that they'd get this one - actually very few women do either. In fact, I'd love to get Waid's opinions here because IMO she is one of our best editors and would likely have some good ideas. Gandydancer (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Too many assumptions. My wife was diagnosed with breast cancer two years ago, and it was a difficult time. I frankly resent the idea that I don't get it. Some of us unwanted "male dogs" are actually married to women. EricCorbett 21:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Eric I was misunderstood, as I knew I would be just as soon as I read my post. I know you are capable of understanding. What I am getting at is that most men would not make the additions to the breast cancer article that Waid did about Pink Ribbon awareness. The Pink Ribbon awareness is a corporate money making scam and I know that men could get that - it's just that IMO it took a woman, because of her being more likely to be aware of the illness in the first place, to point it out. I am assuming, but certainly could be wrong, that men are more interested in prostate cancer. Let me know what you think because I find it extremely difficult to point out the little ways that I think it may make a difference to have more women here. To have objections to my assumptions helps me to think out my own position. Gandydancer (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Speaking as a male dog I don't give prostate cancer a second thought, it'll either kill me or it won't. Breast cancer has a cosmetic and social element to it though. My wife had three operations to rebuild her breast to make her look "normal" again. I don't need anyone telling me that I don't understand the implications of breast cancer. EricCorbett 22:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, you might well know more about breast cancer's psychosocial effects than I do, but you still didn't write the article. Why not? Well, not exactly "why not you" personally (because anyone who has lived with a disease like that might prefer not to spend any extra time thinking about it), but why not any of the thousands of men who edit here? That pretty much seems to be the problem: if the article is a "feminine" subject, then articles don't get created or expanded. We've got plenty of guys willing to write about men's sports, or cars, or other traditionally "masculine" subjects, but the "feminine" ones get no attention.
A few years ago, I tried to work on some officially feminine articles for a while, after reading that the gender imbalance among editors was screwing up article content. I found that the research was largely correct: basic articles on non-sexual "feminine" subjects, like Infant, were pretty much a disaster. In 2009, another female editor and I made some progress on Reform mathematics; teaching younger children is a "feminine" area that Wikipedia has so far neglected. Breast cancer awareness took a couple of months out of 2010. Wedding-related articles have not been very much fun, but benefit from regular attention to keep out spammy pictures of the see-me-at-my-wedding sort. I enjoyed working on Preschool education briefly in 2011. A year and a half ago, I doubled the length of Baby food. I sometimes pick at some medical articles like Breast cancer or Pregnancy when they turn up in my watchlist, but there's relatively little collaboration, and often a surfeit of men willing to criticize. (One of the nice things about editing articles like Preschool education and Baby food is that nobody works on it, so nobody tells you that you should be doing more, while they sit on the sidelines.) I've considered other articles, like Reading comprehension, but I don't have any good sources for them.
I suppose the question is this: Why aren't you working on those kinds of articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm not a medical expert, and I appreciate that many people come to WP for accurate medical information. So why would you expect me to fiddle about with medical topics? What exactly are you trying to pin the blame on me for? EricCorbett 02:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Pink ribbon culture is a social movement, not a medical one, and articles about babies and early education and marriage are also not medical topics.
Additionally, I'm not trying to "pin blame on" anyone, much less you in particular (see "not exactly "why not you" personally...but why not any of the thousands of men who edit here?") I am asking a non-finger-pointing question: You have worked on a lot of articles on a range of topics. Why aren't you working on articles like Reading comprehension? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Because it doesn't much interest me, why else? Unlike you I'm not being paid a salary to contribute here. EricCorbett 00:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Being paid a salary is irrelevant to her question, too bad so sad you and I aren't paid. We're goddamn chumps! But to the point at issue, after creating back labor yesterday I now see there are whole areas of articles missing or in sorry shape that would more likely exist or be better if he had more female editors. This is completely normal. We'd have more articles on Madagascar if more than 1.5% of the population of that country had internet access (and knew English).--Milowent • hasspoken 01:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I answered her question. If she or anyone else wants me to create articles on topics that doen't interest me then money will have to change hands. And quite frankly your implied suggestion that more female editors = more articles on Madagascar is way beyond ludicrous. EricCorbett 12:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I meant if we had more editors from Madagascar, we'd have more articles on Madagascar. But I laughed at your proposed interpretation of my comment. And frankly, I do want you to create articles on topics that don't interest you. I believe you should be forced to create one for every time you comment on this talk page, and am considering making a formal proposal to that end.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:14, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
And how would you suggest enforcing such a proposal? Frankly I think I'm one of the few here who's actually not seeing everything through the prism of some feminist agenda. EricCorbett 14:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Don't I get a credit for creating the article on Margaret Sibthorp for instance? EricCorbett 18:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
-1 off your list then, good work.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
[Insert: I went to User:WhatamIdoing and she explicitly says " Edits, statements, or other contributions made from this account are my own, and may not reflect the views of the Foundation." FYI. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
She may claim whatever she likes, and it is for each of us to decide whether or not to believe her. EricCorbett 12:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm fundamentally paid to contribute to Bugzilla, and mainspace contributions are almost completely prohibited (staff are allowed to revert vandalism or software errors if we encounter it in the course of job duties, and that's about it. Writing articles on the clock gives the legal team a bad rash).
Eric, your rational reason was what I expected: "Because it doesn't much interest me, why else?" Now, do you think that men and women, on average, might have somewhat different interests? And therefore that if you had more women, you might see more articles written on subjects that typically interest women more than men?
I think that this is a generally true statement. I think it can also be generalized: greater gender diversity means greater coverage of subjects that interest different genders; greater geographical diversity means greater coverage of different parts of the world; greater age diversity means greater coverage of subjects that interest people at different stages of life; and so forth. You asked at the start of this section what effect having more female editors would be. My answer is that we would have more and better articles about subjects that typically interest women more than men. Then we could have those articles, even though you (and the thousands of male editors like you) aren't interested in writing them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
In general and in my own experience I don't really find that males and females have radically different interests so far as encyclopedia articles are concerned. The bottom line for me is that the diversity debate is poorly framed, none less so than this gender diversity issue. EricCorbett 16:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I already created gender diversity so I'll let you off for this one. But if you find female editors are just as interested as men in editing playboy playmate articles, I'd like to hear more about this.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
And if you find that female editors are proportionately less interested in history or industrial archaeology for instance, let's hear that too, instead of this continual blustering and obfuscation. Is there a gender gap? Quite possibly, but that's not really the issue. The issue is what impact might that have on WP's content. EricCorbett 18:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
There is a gender gap, and that is the whole issue, this group doesn't like it, and wants to increase participation by female editors. If Wikipedia:WikiProject Madagascar decides to actively recruit more editors interested in Madagascar articles because of the Madagascar Gap, that's fine with me. Editors who try to edit articles about Madagascar are often not familiar with Wikipedia's culture and can be run off. Now, what exact impact will encouraging more female editors have on Wikipedia's content? I cannot say for sure, though I know there will be an impact, because males and females do not have identical interests. You and I no doubt loathe Pinterest and Jenna Marbles, for example, to take some silly examples. But that is really the whole concept behind the corporate movement in gender representation on corporate boards of directors, that a certain level of diversity creates stronger organizations. And more profitable ones because in the business world you can't ignore that cash is king, and if having 100% men on boards would guarantee higher profits, no such initiative would exist, period. Of course you are free to believe differently.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Gandydancer It is fairly well established that "men's diseases" are a bit of a medical ghetto (or they were about 10 years ago). See for example Prostate_cancer#Society_and_culture. As this Blomberg article says most men simply do not like to talk about such a disease. Wikipedia has 72 articles (and three subcategories) in Category:Breast cancer and only 31 articles (and no subcategories) in Category:Prostate cancer, reflecting the societal bias. Of course breast cancer is not a solely female illness, just as heart disease is not the male illness popular culture makes it out to be.
Very few men are interested in prostate cancer, testicular cancer or other male diseases, though Movember has probably changed this somewhat. Indeed the figure I cited about healthy eating indicates a general male indifference to health compared to women. This may well be one of the reasons men die years younger than women. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 02:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC).
Farmbrough, I am very concerned about our health related articles in general, and I feel that we'd see a big change in the way that many issues related to health are handled in our articles if we had 50/50 women here. I'm old enough to have watched the change that occurred in health care as women slowly entered the medical profession as physicians and as nurses struggled to be considered professionals rather than just handmaids to the doctors. As it is, Wikipedia does not represent my circle of friends when it come to health information, and I really do believe that we need women here to change that. Gandydancer (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I had the pleasure of meeting a significant number of the WikiProject Medicine people in London, and it is certainly true that there was a more even gender balance in the group I met. Of course it does not follow that the project at large is better balanced, but the indications from researchSYNTH are that medical contributors are more likely to be female than the average contributor is. Tow follow-up questions then come to mind:
1. Suppose it transpires at some point that on medical articles we have reached parity. Continuing to close the gender gap on Wikipedia as a whole will create a new gender gap on medical topics. What should we do?
2. a) Can you explain what "representing your circle of friends" means, b) and why [more] women are needed to do that and c) if "more women" is sufficient as well as necessary.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 22:32, 5 September 2014 (UTC).
Rich, correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand you, the question you are asking is this: "If there were gender parity on medical topics now or at some point in the future, further increases in overall female participation after that would lead to a new gender gap on medical topics, with men in the minority. What should we do then?" If that is indeed what you meant, my answer would be: "Continue to aggressively recruit women until there is not just one topic where women are in the majority, but approximately 50% of all topics have a female majority, with the other 50% having a male majority." Don't you think that's equitable? And it would still take a long, long, loooooooong time to achieve that. You could even argue that after 13 years of exceptionally high male majorities, Wikipedia could do with 13 years of being dominated by women to the same degree, just to balance things out a bit. Now, if I've misunderstood your question, just ignore this post. Cheers. AndreasJN466 23:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
That is a fair response if we consider "gender gap" to be a civil rights matter. Just as we now have in mainstream society a preponderance of women in psychology and law for example.
However the assertion is often made that males and females bring "different" things to article writing, and the conclusion somehow drawn that we need an equal (or broadly similar) number of males and females working together to produce the ideal product. (I'm sure there are also different views.) In the example given above, and with these assumptions, we would be potentially driving down the quality of medical content, in order to, let us say, improve the quality of articles on Linux distros.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 18:35, 6 September 2014 (UTC).
If at any point in the future Wikipedia were to have something like a 70/30 majority of female editors in the medical field, that might be a potential concern (I think anything within the range of 60/40–40/60 is unlikely to be very significant content-wise). But Rich, look how far we are away from that. It's not a realistic risk even in the medical field. Meanwhile, we have male majorities of 90/10 or at any rate far greater than 70/30 all over the place. That's the problem to be addressed now, and for the foreseeable future. Humanities articles in particular would benefit from women's involvement. I very much doubt that Wikipedia will at any time soon have to worry about having too many female editors. AndreasJN466 00:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
What is your opinion, Eric. Assuming the 15/85 ratio is correct, what effect has that had on content? What would be different if the mix was roughly 50/50? Lightbreather (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Very little would be my answer. What are the topics that would be of more interest to females than males? But let's not misunderstand, I'm in no way against increasing the number of female editors if that can be done in a rational way, just as I'd like to see a lot more older editors. In fact my experience has been that female editors are often much easier to work with, not because they can be browbeaten – which they can't – but because they tend to be more thorough than males. EricCorbett 20:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
So your position is that having an editorial body that is 15-16% men has had a negligible effect on WP content, and that a more balanced gender mix would not have much of an effect on content either. OK. So, aside from the fact that you find them often easier to work with, why do you want more women WP editors? Lightbreather (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm tired and I'm fed up with these repeated accusations that I'm some kind of monster misogynist. Can you can find any evidence at all to support the accusation that I hate all women? EricCorbett 00:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Where on earth has anyone said you hate all women? The point is, you spend a lot of time making statements and asking questions that indicate you think this task force is bogus. Here's what you wrote on your own talk page about it: "Yes, my fundamental objection is to all these conclusions being drawn without a scrap of supporting evidence. The project will of course come to nothing though."[26]
I'm quite certain that Neotarf can point you to the diff, as it was he who made the accusation. Once upon a time that would have been regarded as a personal attack, but obviously the rules have changed since Jimbo's "moral ambitiousness" campaign. EricCorbett 01:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
If you don't believe in it, can't you just leave it alone? Lightbreather (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Why should I be expected to leave lies alone? EricCorbett 01:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I want a broader mix of editors, not too much bothered about this fashionable gender gap. EricCorbett 21:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Listen, Eric, you're insistent when one of your questions goes unanswered, so I'm going to be with you: Why do you want a broader mix of editors? What differentiates your desire for a broader mix from mine? I think the quality of the encyclopedia will be improved by having more women editors. You think there will be virtually no change. So why do care one way or another whether or not more women are recruited? As the OP asked: Why are you here? Lightbreather (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Because a broader mix of editors means a broader mix of experience and opinion, why else? As for women, I really couldn't care less whether or not more women are recruited. I'm here because I think that too many of you have got your heads up your proverbial arses, attacking windmills that are simply mirages. EricCorbett 22:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Ignoring the personal attack, your arguments don't add up. You say the percentage of women editors on Wikipedia has no effect on its content. But you also say you want a broader mix of editors (more women would make a broader mix) because they bring "a broader mix of experience and opinion" - which implies they would improve the project's content. (You also say "they tend to be more thorough," which would also be an improvement.) But you couldn't care less whether or not more women are recruited. So you just want the increase to happen "naturally," considering that the present editing environment is healthy and welcoming to a broad mix of people. And you believe those (many women) who have different experiences and opinions on the matter than your own have their heads up their asses and are tilting at windmills. Dude, if this ever was true - and I doubt it - you and your compadres have become some very real windmills. If you don't mean to be, then please knock it off. Lightbreather (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I never said that the percentage of women editors on WP has no effect on its content, it may or it may not. I simply ask for some evidence of what that impact actually is, not pie-in-the sky dreaming. EricCorbett 18:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm also supportive of initiatives to encourage older people to contribute. I attended an interesting session at Wikimania 2012 talking about such initiatives. One of the claimed explanations of the gender gap is that females tend to have less free time. If we target retired people, we get a triple hit:
Mature people less likely to get into edit wars
Relatively more free time than non-retired people
A population that is disproportionately female
The target population would be all retired people, but it would directly and indirectly address gender gap issues.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
In addition to more articles of interest to women, there would be more representation of women's POV on certain topics. Granted, not all women think the same way on all topics (just as men don't), but there are some topics where there is definitely a significant difference between how men and women interpret such things - about what they think is notable, or has weight, and so on. Lightbreather (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Eric for responding. Privilege is a hard thing to get, especially when you benefit from it (and you don't want to be). Here's a good article about (an article about) privilege to help you get your head around it. As for your second question, I can't tell you how it would be different, or what would look different. But I don't think we should just fix the gender gap for the good of the content of an encyclopedia, I think we should fix it for the good of the people who want to be part of making a good encyclopedia. Happy to talk more here or on my talk page if you want Eric.Thebrycepeake (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm obviously not here to make friends, I leave that kind of stuff to Facebook. But I'd really, really, like to know how WP's content would be improved if the supposed gender gap was addressed, given that many (most) editors don't reveal their gender. EricCorbett 20:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
All editors have biases. Some are able to edit for NPOV despite their biases, some are not. In cases where not all parties are able to edit neutrally, this is balanced by having editors on differing sides of a topic working together. I will say this and move on, since it is a subject from which I am currently topic banned. One WP area that would be improved for this very reason? Gun violence and gun control related articles. The majority of owners are men, and the majority opposed to their control are men, and the majority of WP editors on this subject are men. This bias is clear when reading WP articles on the subject. Lightbreather (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I'm a man, and and I find the issue of gun control in the USA to be incomprehensible. I imagine that the majority of those males you're talking about live in Backwoods, Backwood County, but I don't. EricCorbett 21:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
User:Eric Corbett, see this paper, specifically the section "H2b F-Coverage-Worse", which starts on page 5. The authors performed two different analyses, one generic and one specific to a particular example of a Wikipedia topic area. The first one found that topics that were of particularly high interest to female editors were generally less fully covered in Wikipedia—the articles were on average significantly shorter than articles on topics primarily of interest to male editors. The second analysis looked at a particular topic area (movies) where prior research had identified movies mainly of interest to males, and movies mainly of interest to females. Again, those primarily of interest to females had shorter articles in Wikipedia and vice versa. According to the study authors, Wikipedia article length has in prior studies been demonstrated to be a reasonable predictor for article quality. AndreasJN466 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Eric, it's not about coming here to make friends - maybe you do, maybe you don't. It's about coming here to collaborate with people instead of just tear them down, over and over again. You said above (below now) that you are all for rational ways of getting more women editors, because they are better at paying attention to detail than men. And then you say that there would be no difference with more women editors. And then you go about insulting people who say there would be a difference. Not only does it come off as inconsistent and unintellegent (to me), but I experience as an example of the disruption that people complain about. And, I don't think it makes Wikipedia any better. Maybe you should re-read the entry I wrote above, and figure out why and how you're contributing here. Thebrycepeake (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Eric, I might be willing to answer your questions, if you share your answers first. Lightbreather (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
My answers to what? I thought my position was pretty clear. EricCorbett 20:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
To your questions: Assuming the claimed 16% of female editors is somewhere in the right ballpark, what effect has that had on WP's content? Or what would be different if it was 50%? Lightbreather (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Nothing would be different. EricCorbett 20:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
[Insert: Yes, Eric. One thing would have been different. If 1/3 of editors and 1/2 of admins were women, your 2011 block for incivility] which has been a point of much discussion at ANI today, last month, and elsewhere the last month would have stuck; and if you kept it up you'd have been site banned by now. Getting more women and academics and older people and serious editors in here is half the job; keeping them means dealing with the problem that drives so many away - incivility, be it stupid and ignorant or bloated with intellectual superiority, and everything in between. Unless of course you learned self-control, in which case you'd be happily editing away like everyone else. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
So women are by default more civil than men? That's a petty bold statement. Do you have any proof, other than conjecture that this is true?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Of course she doesn't, because there is none. EricCorbett 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't agree. I'm not interested in Rich's item 1 which is a hypothetical thought experiment, but I am interested in item 2, which is a goal worth pursuing. The mere existence of more editors means we will have more hands on deck to improve existing articles many of which are in abyssal shape. Some research suggests that articles of interest to women tend to be shorter, so that gap, if it exists might be closed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I am also more interested in item 2. But item 1 should also be in out minds, because there are suggestions that changing the culture of Wikipedia is required to preferentially attract more female editors. There are also suggestions that these changes will drive away males (maybe just a few, maybe many). Personally I find the first suggestion interesting, but lacking evidence, and the second extremely unlikely but also not proven either way. (Again the emotions research mentioned above provide tangential support to both statements.) So assuming one had a "culture slider" control labelled "male friendly" on one end and "female friendly" on the other, it is not absurd to imagine that the community, or the WMF would operate the slider until equal numbers of male and female editors were present even if that meant a net loss of editors let alone the same number.
Of course there is also an "option 3", where we recruit as many female editors as we currently have male editors, and in the process recruit proportionately or disproportionately more male editors.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 21:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC).
There are potentially two different questions here: Let me rephrase, then I will try to provide what answer I can to each.
What would the effects be if half of the current number of editors were male and half were female?
What would the effects be if we had as many female editors as we currently have male editors?
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 21:02, 4 September 2014 (UTC).
Research shows (but not as convincingly as we would like) that "female edited" subjects are less well covered than "male edited" subjects. The disparity is not always huge, and there could be other explanations for some of it. The vast majority of subjects are treated as gender neutral, and are better covered than either "male" or "female" subjects. Also the more important subjects (Nobel laureates, and I think Academy Award winners were tested?) received equal coverage regardless of gender.
HI Rich, in line responses - I hope you don't take offense (feel free to move down if you do). Can you provide links for this research? I'd be interested in checking it out Thebrycepeake (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
analyses of two other domains – Nobel Prize winners, and recipients of the Academy Award for Best Actor/Actress – we found that the average length of articles about female subjects is comparable to that of articles about male subjects.
Analysis of humanities vs science.
Analysis of articles edited predominantly by males, females and neither
More (proportionately) "missing" female biographies than male biographies (e.g. a large gendered selection from Chambers Dictionary of Biography we were missing 247 female biographies and 847 male biographies, however this was 11% of the female selection and 5% of the male selection). Again from more selective lists we had 100% coverage.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 02:53, 5 September 2014 (UTC).
Therefore we might reasonably expect the answer to Q1 to be, with respect to coverage, The coverage of male subjects would decrease (comapred with female subjects), the coverage of female subjects would increase, the coverage of neutral subject would decrease very slightly.
Umm, I don't think anyone is suggesting that 50/50 be achieved by killing male editors and replacing them with female editors. So it would result in an increase in topics that receive less coverage on account of Q1, not necessarily the second. Thebrycepeake (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
See my comment to SPHILBRICK above. Also remember we are loosing editors, so focussing out attention on recruiting specifically female editors may result in faster (total) wastage of male editors. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 01:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC).
With Question 2 the answer would be The coverage of male subjects would improve somewhat, the coverage of female subjects would increase, asymptomatically to the coverage of male subjects, the coverage of neutral subject would increase most.
There are other questions than coverage, for example quality (accuracy, referencing, balance etc.), collegiality, ratio of mainspace edits to behind the scenes edits, etc. which I do not have enough information to answer - indeed the questions do not provide enough information, because we do not know if the putative new female editors will be better, the same or worse than our existing editors. Clearly the proposal to recruit high-school students raised concerns that they would be "less good" editors, for example. Conversely a proposal to recruit female professors might give us many potentially high quality editors, but who will be too busy to edit very often.
All the best: RichFarmbrough, 21:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC).
I can think of one obvious difference if Wikipedia editors were 50% women. Taking into account that there are some females "lurking" under gender-nonspecific usernames, perhaps the current percentage could be closer to 25% (just a guess, of course). Now, presuming that the number of male editors continued to be about the same, that would mean that the number of women editors would need to at least triple, or maybe quadruple if my guess is off. This would be a huge increase in the number of overall editors, and therefore an acceleration of the rate of content creation, no matter what topics the women decided to write about. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Rather few editors actually create content, and hardly any of them decent content. But again, what are these topics that only women would be interested in? EricCorbett 21:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Anne: I think there probably are more women than current numbers, though they may not edit as frequently. The interesting thing is that in Critical mass (sociodynamics) (an article that needs a lot of work) you need something like 15 or 20% of people to agree/sympathize to make change happen. Whatever the number, if we could get even half that number to identify openly here as women, that in itself would make a big change. As some of us using our real names can testify, you can do it and not get killed. So using a handle and the little female symbol in your user name to make it clear might be one way to make that critical mass number be reached. like: User:BigBadBird☥ Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
It's also an open secret that there are men here posting as women. If someone wants to use the female pronoun, I don't have any problem with that, but when you get into gender statistics, that can become a little more controversial. —Neotarf (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Really? Are there perhaps also women posting as men? Or is that simply inconceivable? EricCorbett 22:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
None that I know of, although, (pardon my saying so) but I have heard some private speculation about her ladyship, Catherine de Burgh, not that I believe it, of course. —Neotarf (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
With all due respect you clearly don't know very much, so ... EricCorbett 02:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
How does anyone know how frequently women edit if nobody knows who they are? I rather like the idea of not identifying as male or female. I think editors should be judged on what they produce not their gender. I don't want any little symbols after my name. What will happen when this critical number is reached? Will editors suddenly start writing "articles of interest to women"? Perhaps women who don't identify are quite happy with things as they are. Who knows? I don't, but I do think all this speculation is pointless. J3Mrs (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I see gender gap issues the most on the drama boards such as AfD, with a tendency to view biography topics involving women as more trivial and those involving men less so. (the classic "Scottish footballers" or "Sri Lankan cricketeers" criteria for notability, versus, say women actors or writers or college professors). The corollary, of course, is also the disproportionate extent in the creation of said articles on each of the above topics. A minor athlete in a major league in 1935 will get an article. We recently had to deal with an AfD on a woman actor who was "only a supporting actress" in several films by major studios. Seems roughly equivalent to me, but not to the deletionist crowd. Montanabw(talk) 22:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
AfD's are a big area and I had to quit the Feminist alert for a while cause it was taking up too much time. So more women editors would help in that regard.
For women like me stuck with female names because we didn't know better than to use an anonymous gender neutral handle, it would be great to see more evidence of women. I'd basically given up on trying to figure it out and started calling all editors "he" until there was some clear sign they were women.
But it's mostly about building a critical mass of editors and administrators who will just say no to disruptive bullying behavior and thus support more collaborative editing. And this isn't just my idea, see this thread on [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Archive_16#Translating_effective_methods_of_dealing_with_a_culture_of_bullying_from_other_organisations ending bullying] from EditorRetention Wikiproject.
Getting women here in the first place is difficult. Keeping them here if they work on political/economic articles where there are a lot of aggressive guys is something else. I work on those, so I've seen a lot of it. Those who work in calmer waters (and I do work in those types of articles happily from time to time) may not see the issue quite the same way. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
I've only had one article at AfD, an obscure article about a 17th-century nun and guess who came to the rescue, Eric and several other editors who I know are men. I didn't think omg this is a man trying to remove women from the encyclopedia, I was upset because it was obviously someone who hadn't a clue. Likewise I have been reverted by religious zealots pushing a specific and unwarranted pov, and who came to the rescue? Eric. Some women editors here appear to have been annoyed their edits were reverted but the bottom line is were the reverts justified? Reverting is not bullying. Looking for anti-feminist bias in every revert or AfD is counter-productive. The article/edit has to have merit. Perhaps it would be better to categorise editors by those with clue and those without, I wonder what that ratio would be. J3Mrs (talk) 09:26, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
Eric Corbett asked a legitimate question (if at times phrased in the form of an assertion) - do male and female editors actually edit different articles? Would there actually be anything different in the focus of the Wikipedia if we had more female editors? Do women actually write proportionately more articles about women? I think that's worthy of study. Here is a first cut at it. I am looking at who nominated Wikipedia:Featured articles#Literature and theatre biographies as a reasonably large, important, and stable set, and as a fair first approximation of who did most of the work of editing the article (sometimes the nominator is not the main editor, but more often than not they are). I looked at the nominator's user page, user name, and the Template: he or she to determine gender; sometimes it wasn't clear, but usually it was. For the first 20 (alphabetically):
Male editors nominated 9 male author articles, and 2 female author articles (to give credit where due, one of the last was, in fact, Eric Corbett).
Female editors nominated 4 female author articles, and 1 male author article.
Undetermined editors nominated 2 female author articles and 2 male author articles.
I would say that's highly indicative of the fact that yes, women do write more articles about women, at least proportionately, and possibly absolutely. There are more to go through, and I would welcome help going through the others. --GRuban (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
@GRuban: That's a really interesting approach. The best part is that, if the statistics hold up, it allows you a method to assess what proportion of the undeclared editors in aggregate (weighted by participation) are female. To run the math, if x is the proportion of male editors, you've measured 2/4 = x * 2/11 + (100% - x) * 4/5 --- therefore x = (2/4 - 4/5)/(2/11 - 4/5) = 33/68 (48.5%). Of course, just one vote either way totally skews that number now, but with enough data you could actually come to a pretty confident estimate of the sex ratio of the undeclared editors! Which is important because if half of editors are undeclared and they are (as here) evenly divided, that means it's more like a 2-to-1 ratio of male to female than 84-to-16, turning a seemingly hopeless recruitment problem into one which seems much more doable. Wnt (talk) 18:02, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Male editors nominated 47 male subject articles, and 10 female subject articles.
Female editors nominated 13 female subject articles, and 6 male subject articles.
Undetermined editors nominated 3 female subject articles and 10 male subject articles.
It seems clear that there is a clear difference in the articles male and female editors focus on, with male (and undetermined) editors nominating nearly 5 times as many articles about male subjects than about female subjects, and female editors nominating more than 2 times as many articles about female subjects than about male subjects. I don't know if I would go as far as using that to determine genders of undetermined literature bio FA editors (for one thing, half of "them" are Filiocht), but I do think the original question is pretty clearly answered. Yes, women editors do write a proportionally mammoth colossal whopping heap more about women subjects than men do. --GRuban (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
OK, to do what I did before, 3/13 = x * 10/57 + (1-x) * 13/19 , so x = 336 / 377 = 89.1% male. Yikes! This better (but still inevitably rough; one vote could change it by 7.5%!) estimate seems to favor the idea that undeclared editors are not much different in sex than the declared ones. Which, to be fair, you already implied by pointing out that 10/57 (17.5%) ~= 3/13 (23.1%) != 13/19 (68.4%). The data I see on the page this is talk for seems to be survey-based rather than declaration, and to really complete this I'd have to see what the data on the number of declared of each sex and undeclared are sitewide, but the data you've presented definitely makes me doubt my former assumption that female editors, perhaps due to harassment, declared their sex less frequently, and therefore bolsters the case from the survey data that the gender gap is as real as people say. Wnt (talk) 05:44, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
- may be of interest.)
Done