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

Taylor Ulhrich

I have been looking for the contact details of this researcher for a while. Her comments here left me with a couple of questions. I would be grateful if anyone could point her to my talk page/email link, or point me to her contact details. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC).

Systematic bias?

You can call this project whatever you wish, but I'm a bit perplexed at the inclusion of the term "systematic". That the WMF has established there is a gender gap for editors is one thing (I don't know their methods, but I'll accept the claim on face value), but where is there any evidence of systematic bias? That's an extraordinary statement. Something that is systematic, by definition requires methodology. Is this "systematic bias" a bias living in wikipedia, or is the systematic bias that been established to be real in society? If it is the former, I'd love to see evidence. If it is the latter (bias in society) then I'd say its really none of our business. We can't make society do anything. We can't make the sources give equal treatment to women. This smacks of victimization.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:12, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

The project is called Countering systemic bias. Not systematic. The gender gap in editors is the source of this. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:09, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

For the benefit of relatively new members of the Project, could you briefly review the ways in which this systemic bias has been demonstrated to affect article content? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 02:26, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Systemic bias sums it up. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 02:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Examples are provided in 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. {{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) According to a 2013 comment on the Gender Gap mailing list U of Minn researchers found among other things that contributions of users who identified as women are significantly more likely to be challenged or undone by fellow editors and there is a culture that may be resistant to female participation." (See also this overview.) I know there is at least one male editor who has wikihounded me for a year plus, reverting probably 60-70% of my edits in articles he followed me to, and criticizing me elsewhere. That's individual bigotry, of course, but turn it into a bunch of guys frequently reverting a bunch of edits by those perceived as female, it becomes systemic bigotry. (Good luck getting help from WP:ANI or even ArbCom since that's not recognized as systemic bias.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I completely misread that.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Quick win

These red-links can be quickly turned blue, by importing text from DNB on Wikisource.

Even easier I have created drafts for these (and some other missing BDP articles) at s:Category:DNB drafts.

For example s:User:Rich Farmbrough/DNB/J/e/Jessie Fothergill can be cut and pasted to Jessie Fothergill, then a little attention to the wikifying, and checking anything that seems appropriate, maybe finding suitable categories etc., and it is a good start for an article. (The talk page should also be created.)

Caveat: some of the articles may be mangled, for technical reasons, or have other issues - including typos. You remain responsible for your own edits.

Note, once the article is created, the Wikisource page linked to should have a link back to the WP article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC).

Did you create the drafts with automation? There is a thread at WP:ARCA saying that your drafts are "broken". Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said above:

Caveat: some of the articles may be mangled, for technical reasons, or have other issues - including typos. You remain responsible for your own edits.

It is pretty easy to fix up any issues, for example, s:User:Rich_Farmbrough/George_Ridout_Bingham took about 5 minutes, which compared with going from scratch is pretty good.

The conversion process is still in its infancy, in fact it has been on hold for about three years, and has only done maybe 30 articles.

Of course the creation of talk pages and redirects cannot be part of the process done on WikiSource.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

Signpost

I hesitate to post this here, for fear of stirring up a most unpleasant thread that finally shows signs of winding down, but it seems the Signpost, which is chronically in need of writers, is also in need of writers who have some sort of cluefulness about systemic bias. Anyone interested in becoming a contributor, or collaborating on an article, might leave a message at the Signpost talk page or the talk page of the editor-in-chief. I know it says he's on wiki-break, but he does check in from time to time.

For someone who wants to take part on a more casual basis, like everything else here, the Signpost is a wiki, and can be copyedited by anyone. Every time I have had an article published, numerous other individuals have stepped in to correct simple typos (yes, they get through in spite of multiple proofreaders) and to make sure the format is compliant with the style manual. You can have the Signpost delivered to your talk page by placing {{Signpost-subscription}} somewhere on your page (preferably at the top, where it won't get archived), although some people prefer to just watchlist it. It can't hurt to have more eyes on every issue, to inspect each issue as soon as it is published, and to correct these gaffes before they can become an embarrassment to Wikipedia. Regards, —Neotarf (talk) 14:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

WikiWand

Given that design is cited as one of the many reasons for the gender gap, I thought people here might be interested in WikiWand. It's a browser add-on that changes the design of Wikipedia articles, or you can use it by going to their website.

The articles look amazing: larger font, more white space, large images positioned nicely, good use of blockquotes. See Ezra Pound, List of colors, Ernest Hemingway, Poetry. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:44, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The navigation panel is a nice touch; too often the contents box of a Wikipedia article gets in the way of the text, or the image formatting. It doesn't work as well for the "colors" article, as people are more likely to want to skim and scan a list-type article quickly in order to see if it contains the information they are looking for. I had occasion to consult that article a few weeks ago looking for the code for a font color, and the Wikipedia is clearly superior for that purpose.

The gender-based arguments for design choices I am less impressed with. Unless there is some clear study cited, too often these claims are just an excuse to reinforce negative stereotypes of women. How many times do you see "gender gap" used as a stand-in for "stupid user", as an excuse to dumb down the content. Sure there are stupid women, not to mention women who pretend to be stupid so people will like them, as well as men who are stupid. Have you ever watched a group of PhD's standing around a stalled car in the faculty parking lot? Expertise in one subject area does not guarantee competence in another. When it comes to user expectations, I suspect that age has a larger influence than gender. —Neotarf (talk) 18:45, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems self-evident that if Wikipedia were to look nicer, we'd have more women interested in us, and I think it would increase women editors if we had easy ways to make our articles look good. Not only women, it would attract lots of other people too. The point is that the current lack of design is off-putting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:55, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Is there a way to edit article sections from that interface? I can see an edit link for the whole article under the WikiWand menu, that takes you to the standard Wikipedia editor... --GRuban (talk) 19:04, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That's the link, you have to exit to Wikipedia, which they make very easy to do. —Neotarf (talk) 19:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Format is important, sure, but "look nicer" is a fairly nebulous goal. This is about "branding", what you want something to convey by looking at the appearance. Think of the cover of a dead-tree book. It's pretty easy to tell genre at a glance. You don't have to read all the titles on a bookcase to pick out at a glance which is a classic, and which is a Gothic romance. Architectural Digest has one look and feel, Wired has another. So what is Wikipedia's niche? For one, Wikipedia has a unique educational mission. So should it look like a coffee table book with glossy pictures and bland text? I hope not. You want to bring people in sure, but then eventually inoculate them with your values, like WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Maybe it should look more like a museum, say, the Smithsonian? Or more like a library, say, Library of Congress (this is the history section, which I really like). Or a university (here's Harvard), or other educational institution (government education agency). IMO it is most like Digital archive a repository of knowledge, and should combine readability with ease of use. The best look is one that you don't notice, because it immediately facilitates your task. —Neotarf (talk) 19:40, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I disagree. The best look is the one that makes you say "Wow! I want to read, write and taste this, and I need to know the name of that colour for my bedroom wall." A good design pulls you in. Wikipedia looks dull. It's hard to read (the lines are too long, for one thing) and almost impossible to make look good. People read it in spite of the design, not because of it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:52, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It depends on what you want it for. Do you want an Experience or do you need to look up some factual detail. If you solve the first problem without considering the second, you have just forgotten your mission. Which IMHO is the problem of both the Visual Editor Media Viewer oops and WikiWand. If you forget your mission, you will lose people. The good news is that, even though I have VE MV oops again turned off, and was really unhappy about losing some of those features when I disabled it, I have started to see some improvements in the old image functions. —Neotarf (talk) 20:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC) The remarks were meant to be about Media viewer, but apparently my experience with VE was so harrowing that it has damaged my ability to process anything that comes out of the Development team. —Neotarf (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be either or. We can have the Experience while looking up the factual detail. I've been around these discussions for years, with people telling us we had to use tiny thumbnail images, that they always had to go on the top right, that we can't have columns or shorter lines. It's killing us. We need fresh eyes, good design. I just wish the Foundation wouldn't put so many of its eggs in the big baskets (Visual Editor, Flow), because it means the more obvious things are perhaps being overlooked. Speed is another issue – pages are so slow to load. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Good old replag. It can really be a barrier in developing areas. At least with some email providers there are options to go to a slower html version, but can you load a WP page without the images? The problem with the Foundation is that they don't seem to actually edit themselves, so they don't know when they have broken the functionality. The other problem is the WMF doesn't seem to understand the importance of first impressions--if people can't use it the first time, they're not going to come back, no matter how purty it is. Do you think I will have any reason to go back to WikiWand? Been and done. —Neotarf (talk) 21:08, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

It's nice except the font is horribly jaggy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

More WikiWand/gender gap (arbitrary break)

I'm interested in the concept that design is responsible for the gender gap. I have seen no evidence for this, can you point me to it? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:15, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

Sue. Number 1. There is no comparison with men--who knows, maybe men find it equally or even more off-putting than women. —Neotarf (talk) 21:24, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

That blog post was fine as a call to arms but evidence it ain't. The support for "Number 1" is a comment left on another blog, that agrees the interface is not great - but from a woman who has edited and created pages, and does not seem intimidated by it.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:09, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

I don't have any evidence, Rich, it just seems obvious that it would be a factor. Wikipedia feels like a neglected old seaside town. It's still a great place, but there's nowhere to buy good cheese, bread, olive oil or coffee, and when you go to the local pub you have to fight your way through swirly carpets and cigarette smoke. People still visit because it's the seaside, but they come away disappointed every time. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Bread or roses? If an application doesn't work, do aesthetics matter?

Perhaps a mowed lawn and some geraniums in the window would send a message to drifters that this neighborhood is watched, and there are easier pickings elsewhere. ...and adding an image to see what it does to the text box. —Neotarf (talk) 13:29, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

There is some circumstantial evidence. The other day I mentioned The Handbook of Language, Gender, and Sexuality, which notes:

Recently, women have come to outnumber men in some social media domains. They use social network sites such as Facebook more often and more actively than men (Brenner 2012), and female users predominate on the microblogging site Twitter, the consumer review site Yelp, and the online pinboard Pinterest. More males, in contrast, frequent music-sharing sites such as last.fm, as well as Reddit, a social news website known for its sometimes misogynistic content (HuffPost Women 2012; Williams 2012); contributors to Wikipedia are also overwhelmingly male (Lam et al. 2011). Moreover, the professional social network site LinkedIn has attracted almost twice as many males as females. LinkedIn representatives claim that this is because men are better at professional networking than women, at least in some industries (Berkow 2011), whereas women have traditionally focused on maintaining relationships (Fallows 2005; cf. Tannen 1990). Women's greater concerns about privacy and identity disclosure on social network sites (Fogel and Nehmad 2009) may also predispose them to interact with individuals they already know and trust (Muscanell and Guadagno 2012), which Facebook and other social network site facilitate through features such as "friending."

Crocco, Cramer, and Meier (2008) argue that the move toward web-based computing has had an equalizing effect on gendered technology use. If equality is defined as equal in principle access, women in the United States have caught up with men. At the same time, the web is becoming increasingly specialized by gender. Although many sites are male-dominated, women today have more choices of online environments than they did in the past, including social media sites in which they can exercise a degree of control over who reads and comments on their contributions. As discussed further below, users of these social media sites tend to be less anonymous than in earlier text-based forums.

So women online place more importance than men on spending time with people congenial to them, prefer to avoid people who are not, and like to form more meaningful personal relationships than men. (Incidentally, one take-away from Wikimania was that two people told me, based on their experience as arbitrators, that women object more strenuously to socking than men, and for different reasons: men object because it corrupts the process, but women feel it is a personal breach of trust if the same person uses several identities to talk to them.) Now, in general, Wikipedia is quite hostile to all of these concepts. Forming relationships is actively frowned upon in some ways and engenders mistrust (cf. rules against canvassing, meatpuppeting—which also have good justifications of course), and anonymity is a paramount value.

As for avoiding people who aren't congenial, Wikipedia articles, like waterholes, attract species of editors with opposing agendas who have to somehow coexist, despite the tension between them, in order to work here. It's stressful. Writing on any mildly contentious topic in Wikipedia you are practically bound to come up against the very sort of people whom you might most avoid associating with in your private life.

In short, despite successful initiatives like edit-a-thons that emphasise the communal aspects of contributing by like-minded people acting without the cover of anonymity, the deck is in many ways stacked against equal gender participation on Wikipedia.

But if you look at the examples the Handbook mentions, it is also worthwhile to note that, quite apart from anonymity and the patterns of social interaction, the sites where men are most dominant – Wikipedia and Reddit – are very, very dry and text-based. The sites where women predominate look quite different from Wikipedia. Pinterest is full of gorgeous, nourishing images. So is Yelp. People on Twitter and Facebook share personal images with friends, etc.

It's clear that men don't care much about desktop aesthetics if there is function, but there is plenty of circumstantial evidence suggesting that women do. If you look at other parts of life, pubs, bars, tea places, coffee houses etc. attractive mainly to men look different from those mainly frequented by women, and the average bachelor's flat shows less evidence of aesthetic ambition than the average single woman's place. Obviously, we are always talking bell curves here, with plenty of men and women found at either extreme, but the averages are not in the same place on the scale. Andreas JN466 10:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Andreas, this hits the nail on the head in so many ways. It would be great if it could be posted as an essay, or on the task force page here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Slim. An expanded version will shortly be a blog post on WO. Andreas JN466 18:38, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Will it be CC-BY-SA 3.0? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

I'm happy to post it on-wiki, either as an essay or elsewhere (which will take care of the licence at the same time). Incidentally, it's sparked press coverage in Spain (El Confidencial) and Italy (Pronews.it). Andreas JN466 17:17, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That's a brilliant blog post, Andreas. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Except for the bits that are wrong! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC).

• is there evidence that design issues contributes to the gender gap? If so, I couldn't agree more with SV. Why spend money on big projects that no one is asking for? Low hanging fruit indeed.Two kinds of pork (talk) 23:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

As linked above [Sue Gardner's article on why women don't edit, Number 1, which is more related to user-friendly. But that includes a non-intimidating and pleasing appearance. Of course, the new Beta format is supposed to address those issues. But between old users not wanting to learn it and various bugs still being fixed, that's still being worked on. As a lazy old user, I can't really comment on alternatives myself, except to say if they are an option for those who prefer them, great. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

[Later note: Also, given that many women are busy doing child and adult care and house work that they tend to get stuck with more, plus their day jobs, a simple and easily learned, well-organized interface (and help and policy sections) also make it more likely they'll take the time to edit and learn the ropes. Wikipedia's failings in this area does point out The Tyranny of structurelessness in more anarchistically organized sites. Not that top down ones like Facebook, where women do abound, are necessarily easier, and of course many think they trick and manipulate users for profit. Hopefully some geniuses will fix it all someday! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This saddens me, to see such outright sexism on our own Gender Gap page. What's the point? Boys like to edit in a smelly locker room with pinups on the wall while girls like everything neatly in its place with lace curtains and potpourri? How can we promote closing the Gap when we perpetuate cultural stereotypes and slurs? A more productive effort would be to beef up articles about girls who've won Nobel prizes, academic honors, and national elections. SPECIFICO talk 13:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

The text editor is a huge barrier for new users. My first edit took me a huge amount of time to google, and a lot of the instructions I saw online were just plain wrong. It took me 3 hours to figure out how to do the second edit. But the VE is a disaster. I have heard it is being used to train new users now--they can hardly wait 3 hours for a second edit, can they?--but I don't know of any female editors who use it. I suspect it will prove more valuable in attracting retired academics that will be required for the next phase of WP's growth. (And it probably isn't helpful to refer to grown women who are notable enough for their own BLP as "girls"). —Neotarf (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO no girl has ever won the Nobel prize or a national election. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 19:24, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Though Malala Yousafzai was widely rumored to be a favorite. --GRuban (talk) 20:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh plenty of gals are Nobels and plenty of guy Nobels tell off-color locker room jokes when they think they're in private. It's just one of those things. Also the female Laureates also tell off-color tales from time to time and some of both the males and females harbor gender biases of various kinds. Just sayin'... Cheers. SPECIFICO talk 20:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Gals, yes. Girls, no. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{

re}} 20:31, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Marie Curie grew up and won two! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

More WikiWand/improved image handling (arbitrary break)

Just out of curiosity, I have heard of something called "vector skins" or somesuch that is (maybe) supposed to change the appearance of...something or other. Know anything about that? —Neotarf (talk) 21:35, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The only thing I've heard of is Winter. Work began on it at the end of 2013, but I don't know its status, or what it will look like. Pinging Jorm (WMF) who might be willing to update us. Hi Brandon, we're talking about WikiWand, design and how it might affect the gender gap. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:43, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Winter, yeah there's a test page, fake notifications (I hope, otherwise Oliver Keyes has been talking about me), the drop down boxes are nice, collapsed language box, nice fonts or whatever, the margins are a little narrow, but I expanded my screen to almost full view and it was better, nice having the box with similar topics above the fold. Downside: talk page is not nested, so no way to respond to specific comments; I don't really like the right-hand column, can't explain why. —Neotarf (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing a right-hand column that's empty for most of the article (except for the navigation box at the top) so that in sections with images there are 3–5 words per line. I'm assuming it's not meant to look that way. I'd expect the images to run down the right-hand column. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, the navbox takes up a lot of room, maybe that would make the columns wider. It's nice to be able to put images on the right or left, but then you have to take care not to have them too close together, not sure why they're usually on the right. On the free WordPress blogs, you can't get enough whitespace around the image if you put it on the left. Too bad VE isn't more like the WordPress text editor. —Neotarf (talk) 22:42, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

There's also Athena. That page was started in 2011. I don't know what the relationship is between Winter and Athena. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:03, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like mainly for phones. Wonder when they're going to fix the Signpost, it's completely unreadable on cellphone unless you go to it from a link on a user page. —Neotarf (talk) 22:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, here's the "skin" thing. At the top of the page when you are logged on, under preferences > appearance > skin there are 4 options, doesn't really say what it's for. —Neotarf (talk) 22:34, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

SlimVirgin: (Putting my comment here, so as not to mess with the other indentions) Winter is a series of design experiments aimed at modernizing the interface. There's a lot going on there (it has a project page on mediawiki.org and you can play with a prototype. You can't log into the prototype (which is why the notifications are all generic). I talked a lot about this at Wikimania, but the gist is: "Athena" is an a sort of "umbrella" project, of which Winter is part of.

The sidebar is a work in progress - we want to pull "meta" information into it (things like infoboxes) and do things like include galleries and other ways to surface additional content as well as possible contribution vectors. The question about moving all the images into that side bar has come up before but the problem is that images inserted into the content are typically associated with text that's near them; pulling them out doesn't allow for us to keep them in context.

It's status is that we are in development to make it a beta feature, which will be opt-in (probably for a long time) before we talk about making it permanent.--Jorm (WMF) (talk) 23:37, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Section of Night (book) on WikiWand

Hi Brandon, thank you for the quick response. The issue that prompted this question is the appearance of WikiWand. It looks really good, and I would love to be able to re-create that look on Wikipedia.

One of the obstacles is the way we handle images. I have no technical knowledge or vocabulary, so I don't even know how to describe this properly or what questions to ask you. But basically when we try to introduce those grey block quotes, the images won't allow us to place them where we want to.

I've posted about this at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#WikiWand, images and blockquotes, with screenshots from Night (book), which is an article with lots of blockquotes, which I'd love to improve the look of. But it just doesn't seem possible with the tools we have available.

Is there anything the Foundation can do to help us develop new tools reasonably quickly with the current interface, so that we can approximate some of the WikiWand features? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 00:45, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I've added an image above Andreas' text box above, not sure if this is the formatting problem that is meant. But surely the MediaWiki markup is a mature product--would creating a beta with one or two small changes be so complex? —Neotarf (talk) 13:41, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Agree that it would be great if we could modernise the look on here like WikiWand. I really think white text on a dark background as a border makes the text in the article stand out more. I preferred the original wikiwand look with the white font on picture but they had problems with visibility on some images. I don't like the current white box obscuring part of the image but if they moved the grey and white side header to the centre top of image and remove the white bottom and replaced the side header with "contents" it would look a lot better. I've seen a glimpse of your Athena design on The Beatles @Jorm (WMF): and I really think the big background image with the title at the top on it is the way to go at least. What I saw of the "Winter" design though IMO it looked bland and unappealing. I'd like to see the new skin introduced following the design of WikiWand as much as possible. I'm pretty sure then if you did a survey you'd find in a short period of time that the majority of editors prefer it. I've read some comments from people saying "wikipedia should be plain white and conservative, flashy headers and images distract the reader" but for me it's the absolute opposite and makes the text far more attractive to read and improves the quality and appearance. I currently use WikiWand or the reader function on Safari for browsing wikipedia. A reader function Brandon like on Safari like a book I think would be a good feature to introduce too. Not quite sure what this has to do with gender gap though!♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the Beatles article on Athena looked great. The mobile site looks pretty good too. The Beatles doesn't look so good because the images are too small, but I like the font, though I'd prefer it a bit smaller and the lines of text shorter. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:23, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Images

I am advised that a big gap in the attractiveness of Wikipedia as far as celebrities are concerned is the lack of images. Not lots an lots, a la Hello but a nice head-shot in the infobox. This of course is partly due to our restrictions on fair use images of living people. Perhaps we could change this to be slightly more permissive?

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:12, 25 August 2014 (UTC).

People have to be more proactive in contacting these peoples' publicity representatives, at least some of whom would prefer having a nice photo than some of those that end up on the page. Maybe there could be a page on commons (linked here) that would explain how to find and contact their representatives. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 00:52, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Or a contact for the publicity representatives to talk to? Isn't this a problem for Commons? —Neotarf (talk) 13:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "problem". In other words Commons help could list a few sites that list celebrities contact people, assuming it doesn't already, since I haven't looked. And assuming there are such, which I assume :-). It's no different than asking anyone else for permission to use their photos under which ever license is relevant. (Haven't uploaded in a while so have forgotten a lot of details.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:49, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Scope

The Scope section of the article appears to say that women reject WP because it is fact-based. This seems ill-defined and problematic -- highly prone to various interpretations which would be sexist and denigrating of women editors and users of WP. SPECIFICO talk 15:42, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree. No Malibu Barbie language please.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

This isn't (or shouldn't be) superficial stereotyping. It is a subject that has been researched, see Simon_Baron-Cohen#Autism_research, for example. We know Aspies are often great systematisers, and this is a good characterisation (indeed a classical description) of encyclopeadists. (We have female Aspies here too.doing good work.) The possibility that women "just don't wanna" should not be discounted, after all most men "just don't wanna" either. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 26 August 2014 (UTC).

Hopeless

The things that drive off female editors from wikipedia are some of the same things that keep a lot of women in the real world from reaching their potential. I will note that many these same behaviors drive off male editors as well. If we solve these problems, it will be a great thing. However, I fear it is hopeless. But I'll outline my views nonetheless. Montanabw^(talk) 04:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

1. Bullying and harassment. My own experience is that seldom is it gender-directed (I have a gender ambiguous user name, often those who attack me assume I am male). However, the trolls, the bullies, the POV-pushers, the tendentious editors, and the flat-out crazies all seem to have mastered ways to game the system and those attempting to simply edit content in good faith seem to get the short end of the stick. Montanabw^(talk) 04:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

1. "Systemic bias" - which I define as the unconscious (or only partially conscious) tendency to view topics about or of interest to people who resemble them (often, though not always white men under 30 who like video games) of generally greater interest and more easy to pass WP:GNG than topics about people who are not like them (women, people of color, historical figures, etc.). Examples abound, I see this frequently in articles about women who are actors or college professors being nominated for AfD and held to a higher standard of notability than, for example, an article about a male sports figure from an obscure sport who perhaps played one season as a pro. I see similar problems with recentism and on topics involving non-white people: I work on articles about Native Americans, where I find rather appalling levels of cluelessness on the part of some editors. I think it's ignorance rather than racism, but it's a dogged insistence that their ignorance is actually correct Montanabw^(talk) 04:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem is NOT: A) the interface. For chrissake, women routinely learn customized database programs and a host of other technological skills. Wikipedia is not that complicated to edit. B) the topics: we don't need pink ponies and magic unicorns. Or fashion. That's really condescending

OK, off soapbox now. Montanabw^(talk) 04:20, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the interface, while a problem for some, is not the main problem. The main problem is once women get past all the other issues that keep them from editing, women have a far lower tolerance for incivility and game playing than guys, many of whom may see it as sport; more women value civility and honest collaboration, as various studies show. So your number 1 is an excellent argument for stronger enforcement of civility in general and a robust mediation effort (with paid mediators if necessary).

The double standards you talk about in number two also apply to number one. Having naively registered with my name, I have seen dozens of examples of males saying nasty things that were ignored while I got trashed for things that editors only assumed were or took as insults. I also got two major blocks for things that guys usually would get short ones for and only interventions by the community in one case and Admins and Arbitrator in another, shortened them. A PC mag article said a study of wikipedia showed that "female editors are more likely to get blocked indefinitely". (Haven't had a chance to identify and read it yet. Listing of dozens of relevant research/article/links almost ready for prime time.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:43, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I doubt that things would be any different if we were to pay male mediators here. Hiring female mediators gets back to the affirmative action question. At any rate, I've seen some male mediators fall flat on their male faces here, and male-on-male incivility is more the rule than the exception -- male Admins included. However, back to our mission: I'm sure that any female editor who could show that she was sanctioned due to her gender could effectively appeal and reverse her block. In fact, if such an event could ever be demonstrated to have occurred, it would be her obligation to other women and to the Project to expose such discrimination. SPECIFICO talk 13:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Systemic bias/double standards do not necessarily show in specific language which can be used at evidence. They tend to show in numbers which have to be collected. One woman sharing anecdotes can lead to a number of women sharing them, a start in the evidence collection process. Unless of course the place where they are shared is so overwhelmed with people opposed to women sharing their stories, hectoring and challenging women that most women are driven out. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:35, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If I understand you, this is again a promotion of affirmative action solutions. Are you saying that statistical evidence -- "numbers which have to be collected" -- would tell the community to reverse the sanction of an individual editor for behavior not referenced or even known to those in the statistical sample? SPECIFICO talk 13:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

SPECIFICO wrote: "I doubt that things would be any different if we were to pay male mediators here. Hiring female mediators gets back to the affirmative action question." I didn't say anything about the sex of the mediators.

SPECIFICO is also conflating collecting evidence of systemic bias in general as a consciousness raising effort with some more bureaucratic means of telling the community to reverse a sanction. Stop assuming a false point you are trying to prove? The community will reverse an obviously unfair sanction, using whatever evidence there is, be it some admin saying "I'm blocking this stupid female/Arab/African-American" or be it someone getting a six month block for doing something that individuals normally get a 2 day block for, especially should it be special circumstances, like someone who is harassed telling someone to f#ck off or calling them a "l**p d**k" or something. In short, if it is proved that there is a pattern of sanctioning women more harshly, and editors think that's what's happening and they oppose that sort of thing, they'll say so. It's not some rule imposed from above. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Re "On average, males and females have different interests":

Dear editors: As a person trained in the interpretation of statistics, I urge editors not to put individuals, male or female, in a box because of averages. There is a great deal of variability in the interests of both men and women. Do statistics showing that on the average more women than men are interested in fashion, makeup, jewelry, romance novels, or whatever, make me less feminine because I prefer math, logic puzzles, science fiction and computer programming? The overlap in interests and personality traits between genders is far greater in most cases than the difference (see this graph which is from p. 11 of the book Pink Brain, Blue Brain: How Small Differences Grow Into Troublesome Gaps - And What We Can Do About It by Lise Eliot). It's much more important (IMO) to meet all new editors with an open mind and present them with an environment that encourages happy editing of whatever topics catch their interest. If something in the Wikipedia culture is deterring editors (for example, incivility, complicated formatting, belittling of some topics as trivial, or whatever other barriers come up), we need to improve it because it is deterring current and future fellow Wikipedians, be they women or men. —Anne Delong (talk) 05:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

hear hear!! (And don't forget "some topics are too important for annoying women to be meddling" -the easily inferred attitude I've run into a lot.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

"some topics are too important for annoying women to be meddling" That would be an outrageous statement. Could you provide several examples of such statements? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:53, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Carol, sometimes your posts make me wonder if we're working on the same encyclopedia. For instance, I've been here since 2006 and I've never seen it inferred that "some topics are too important for annoying women to be meddling". Could you give a few examples? Gandydancer (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Outrageous is guys coming here to disrupt this project. The evidence accumulates daily.

Otherwise, I'll write you an essay when I get a chance describing in general (or through reference to various ANIs, etc.) personal experience and quoting various females with various similar perceptions. Meanwhile for starters to educate the naysayers and doubters see"

• Gender Gap project at Wikimedia and related pages:
• Gender Gap Stories
• Gender Gap Manifesto
• Gender Gap Policy Revolution

Much more to come. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

If you have links which demonstrate "guys coming here to disrupt this project" please provide the links so we can all discuss and evaluate "evidence accumulates daily." Disruptive editing is unacceptable on WP. SPECIFICO talk 15:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah. I went to Gender Gap Stories. The first story there is about how a new editor went to an existing article about a song, deleted its contents, and replaced them with unreferenced information about an unofficial name for an event. Then when that was reverted, and a pointer to the already existing article about the event was added, right at the top, she went back to the article, and not only readded the information about the event right into the article about the song, but added a political rant about cyber-bullying being the reason the info was being deleted. In main space. Right at the top of the article. Right underneath the link to the already existing article about the event. Which she left in. Frankly, I would not consider this an example of systemic bias, I would consider this an example of complete editor cluelessness, and I'd support her ban from the project until she understood just how clueless she was being. --GRuban (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, she is no different than any other new good faith editor who tries to make good faith edits, but gets chastised for their troubles. There is no gender discrimination here, but their experience is used to assert there is.Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:03, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

All of these links are works in progress; the real horror stories are accumulating in other data bases to be added later. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:12, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I suggest you present only well-formed and documented evidence and fully-reasoned suggestions here. On WP, as in life, the road to hell is paved with good intentions and this Project could be irreparably sidetracked and ruined by undocumented, false, or misdirected discussion. SPECIFICO talk 16:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Yes, you've said in multiple places "more is on the way" several times. Do you have an estimate of when that might be? Two kinds of pork (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are multiple editors who are not part of this project here using this space as a forum to discuss their opinions about the project? It needs to stop. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

There are of course, no prohibitions from non-members from commenting here, as pretty much anywhere else on wikipedia. Even if there were, one could simply join the project. IOW, "go away" isn't much of an argument.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:34, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

The issues is WP:NOTFORUM, not non-members commenting. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 17:37, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

It's always a good idea to read an essay before quoting it. Eric Corbett 17:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This is not a clubhouse. IOW, no membership necessary, everyone is welcome. Please wipe your feet at the door.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Again, this is not about "clubhouses". It's about people coming here to air their opinions on the project itself, its users, and "feminist bluster". That is WP:FORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:00, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Airing opinions about the project and it's goals is the purpose of this page. Your comments that fall along the lines of "you're not even members" is an ad-hominem argument. Constant cries of "personal attack", when no PA were made makes you the boy who cried wolf. SPECIFICO and Eric asked honest questions. It's poor cricket to shoot the messenger instead of the message. I don't know what their motivation is, but mine is to close the editor gap. I fear AA attempts are fraught with peril. I'm willing to listen to all proposals however. But I start to wonder when the most common theme around here is "evidence is on the way" and cries of NPA. So far the only thing that I've seen on these pages that was worth discussing was SV's suggestion and (not to toot my own horn) of paying young women to edit for a year. Hey, I just suggested an AA idea (again) to close the editor gap. Am I talking to myself?Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Pork, there are clear personal attacks and derailment in these discussions. Working to improve the project is excellent. Complaining about its existence, its users, or feminism isn't. That's WP:FORUM. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 04:51, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

There are personal attacks, but it is not in the direction you appear to think it is. Yes, there is some minor soapboxing and disruption occurring, but it's not one-sided. I'm assuming you know how to file an ANI ticket if you think this has risen to that level. However I doubt anything will occur other than wasting people's time and you being chastised for doing so. This project is still in its infancy, and of course there will be some questions raised as to its scope and proposals. I suggest giving others the benefit of the doubt instead of poisoning the well.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:15, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• A statistical question. This topic claims that on average males and females are interested in different subjects. Regardless of whether or not that's based on any evidence, surely the term average has no meaning for nominal data such as that? Eric Corbett 18:15, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Obvious and recurrent disruption of any Wikiproject can be reason to go to WP:ANI and ask for a project ban (or topic ban on those couple articles most directly related, if necessary). Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Eric Corbett 18:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Using a more colloquial sense of "average" as opposed to a mean. Replace with "typical" or "plurality" if it helps you. Average could also mean mode here where people in a given category have modal interest categories. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 20:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Mode and average are quite different concepts, and this is after all a thread started by someone claiming to have some statistical expertise. I really don't understand the reluctance evident throughout this project to deal in verifiable facts rather than feminist bluster. Eric Corbett 20:31, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: Average can mean mean, median, mode, or other measure of central tendency. It is perfectly acceptable to use "average" in reference to a mode. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it isn't, not when you're working with nominal data. Eric Corbett 09:28, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

• As the originator of this thread, I should have made it more clear that I was responding to the use of the phrase further up the page. I wanted to point out that by welcoming each editor's skills and interests as an individual, rather than trying to target just topics that someone has decided might interest women in particular, we'd be working on the gender gap in an effective way. Maybe I'm a little sensitive about this because my interests don't conform to the average; for example, I couldn't stomach it if the project members decided that they would encourage women editors by sending them links to cute cat videos (okay, that's a silly example). There were some editors, a few weeks ago, when the page was called "Gender bias task force", who wanted to expand the mandate of the project, and this could be considered a little disruptive in that it distracted everyone from their work in closing the gender gap. Changing the name of the page to focus the discussions more directly on the gender gap was a good idea, since that was the original purpose of the task force, and appears to have settled that issue. I had no intention of starting an argument, and I apologize if my comments ended up being another distraction. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:26, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Anne, your post wasn't a distraction at all, it was very helpful. You're right – a lot of the stuff that may be causing the gender gap is putting off male editors too, and we should always be wary of generalizations and "one size fits all." SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:39, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I personally think the majority of males here could be helpful. They just have to be willing to chide the minority who cause the most problems. It is some subset of them who I was referring to as seeing women annoying. (Just like in the rest of the world.) But I guess we have to specify (in bold italics if necessary?) that we are talking about the problematic minority every time we post or some will claim we are talking about all males. I guess we have to knock down those straw men before they even contemplate getting up. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:03, 28 August 20414 (UTC)

So you now seem to be suggesting that the majority of males here aren't helpful, hardly a step in the right direction. Eric Corbett 21:16, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Eric Corbett, if anyone had said that, you would be right - but no one said it. Responding to what was said: it's usually better to respond to or comment on the content of specific posts, instead of generalizing. However, I disagree that it's the duty of male editors to take on the responsibility of reining in disruptive editing by other males in order to be welcome here (unless they want to). The editors here seem quite capable of standing up for their own ideas. And there is always the choice of just moving on ... speaking of which, back to the gender gap: Would anyone like to help with this one? —Anne Delong (talk) 21:52, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Are we speaking the same language? "I personally think the majority of males could be helpful" very clearly implies to me that they are not currently helpful. Having collaborated successfully with many female editors I very much resent being painted with this cave man brush. Eric Corbett 22:06, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This page is about systemic bias, not the misdeeds of various editors who are male editors. I have not seen any data to document the relative frequencies of disruptive behaviors among the male and female editor populations. The straw man is the suggestion that males are more often disruptive than females on WP. That is far removes from the sort of gender bias we are addressing in this Project. SPECIFICO talk 22:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but try telling that to Carolmooredc, and good luck with that. Eric Corbett 22:30, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Eric Corbett: You are making personal attacks against Carol again and not assuming good faith of an experienced user. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Let's not make personal remars here. Noone is perfect. SPECIFICO talk 22:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Get real. What about "Carol, sometimes your posts make me wonder if we're working on the same encyclopedia"? It's about time that Carol started answering a few questions. Eric Corbett 22:54, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

This is getting needlessly personal and belligerent. Maybe you should take a different approach before you say things you could regret. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a different approach before you say things that you should already have regretted. Eric Corbett 23:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

...before you say things that you should already have regretted. ? That might be poetic if it contained some sense. In any case, consider easing up on your fellow editors, it doesn't look like it's leading anywhere productive.__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Then stop, just stop. Eric Corbett 00:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

What's all this stuff coming across my watch list? This project seems to be dominated by men who are hostile to it. @Carol, isn't there an essay somewhere that explains how men can participate constructively in this type of group? —Neotarf (talk) 02:53, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A couple of us on the GG email list (which is moderated for civility) have started to talk about that, drawing on various techniques used by various groups. One such model is Geek Feminism's about working in communities including men. They also have one about men's responsibility: Free sexism consulting (i.e., problems with asking women to fix problems created by men). Obviously that's just one perspective. There are lots more that editors who sincerely think there is a problem and want to solve it can read, incorporating relevant material. Those who doubt the project should be active in this way obviously should not be harassing us to stop discussing solutions to the problem. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:06, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah that was it. I'd be surprised if a lot of people haven't taken this off their watchlists already. What a downer.

Behavior of male participants

Men are welcome in COMMUNITY. However, in order to further our goal of being women-focused, we must retain the sense that most of the effort and discussion in COMMUNITY is by and about women and their role in LARGER COMMUNITY. Otherwise, women will start to find that our group does not suit their needs.

Men should particularly respect that COMMUNITY:

is not a place to solicit women for relationships, advice, or emotional support. You might, in time, make friends but please focus on furthering our goals rather than enlarging your social network. must continue to be a place where women's voices are heard frequently and in conversation with one another. Hence, listen more than you talk. Make your contributions by appreciating and asking questions about others' contributions. If a woman has a problem, wait and allow other women to offer help first. If a woman is already being helped by another woman, think carefully before offering additional assistance or advice. Don't explain things unless specifically requested, especially topics in the audience's areas of expertise (see "splaining"). Offer specific help rather than advice. Don't expect special rewards or recognition for your participation as a man. Be aware that some women might prefer that this was a women's only space; accept this with grace.

COMMUNITY is not designed as a place to educate men about why we exist and to argue about whether women's participation is a real issue or needs a special support group. Please take steps to educate yourself about women's participation and do not insist that other members frequently interrupt their activities to educate you. We suggest http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Resources_for_men as a starting point for self-education. Men who participate in COMMUNITY but who persistently behave in ways that distract us from our goal of furthering women's participation may be warned, and, if necessary, asked to leave.

—Neotarf (talk) 08:21, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for posting it here! I especially like the part about interrupting activities... sigh... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 17:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

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).

"Pay to play" proposal?

If people have a serious proposal - especially one controversial to the list or the community - they should create a section and not just put it on the main page so we can discuss if we want it to go past the proposal stage. Perhaps the author could explain it here? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 12:26, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

What happened to being bold? In any case, one way of closing the gender gap is obviously to increase the number of female editors. The WMF is a fundraising machine, and apparently has funds to pay developers to create features that the community seemingly doesn't want, send staff and board members all over the world for conferences etc. Why not take some of those funds and have a little experiment. Find an all-girls school and pay them to offer a year long course that requires their students to edit articles. I don't know what the syllabus should entail, but I'm sure something can be put down on paper. My suggestion of using the Philippines is because they speak English and compared to the US/UK, it's pretty darn cheap over there. You could probably get schools over there to do this for less of a stipend then elsewhere. If you want to expand this, do the same thing for an all-boys school and a co-ed school. I'm not a scientist, so I can't speak to control groups etc, but I'm sure someone who is familiar with the scientific method could suggest a way to do this to collect statistics.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:33, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Bigotry against women proposal

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

• Update Wikipedia:WikiBigotry essay to include bigotry towards women.

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

What needs removal from research section?

Wikimedia Foundation sponsored studies

Foundation editor surveys

• Wikimedia press release] about first, November 2008 survey by Wikimedia Foundation and the United Nations University’s tech-research program MERIT).

• 2009 Wikimania slideshow about the survey.

• 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.

• Per above Wall Street Journal blog entry on this

• Research:Wikipedia Editors Survey 2011 (Nov. 2010-April 2011) Survey report

• Wikimedia blog entry overview of early 2011 Editor Survey (Search for other blog entries on editor surveys)

• Research:Wikipedia Editors Survey November 2011 (April - October 2011) Survey report

• Women Editors Survey overview
• Graphics from above study: Editors reporting harassment outside Wikipedia; Gender balance bar chart (using differing registered vs. editor statistics); Predominantly male pie chart (using 9% female editors statistic)

• Research:Wikipedia Editor Survey 2012 (July-November 2012) (Final report in progress, with discussion of updates on talk page.)
• Charting Diversity:Working together towards diversity in Wikipedia, Report produced by Beuth University (Berlin) and Wikimedia Deutschland, 2014.
• Research:Gender micro-survey (in progress)
• Research:Wikipedia Gender Inequality Index (in progress)
• Amanda Menking, Women and Wikipedia (assessing existing efforts to address the gender gap, in progress)
• See also Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Demographics

Funding gender gap projects

• 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

• 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.

• See also Joseph Reagle's later comments, The Nuance of the Gendergap Statistics, personal web site, January 30, 2013

• 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.

• See also overview What the most active female editors contribute, Research:Wikimedia newsletter

• 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.)

• See also overview University of Minnesota researchers reveal Wikipedia gender biases; Gender gap shows no sign of closing over the past five years, University of Minnesota "Discover", August 11, 2011

• 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

• See also overview "Gender gap connected to conflict aversion and lower confidence among women", Sign Post, February 27, 2012

• Steiner, Linda; Eckert, Stine, Wikipedia's Gender Gap, International Communication Association conference paper, 2012.
• Pablo Aragón, Andreas Kaltenbrunner, David Laniado, Yana Volkovich (Barcelona Media Foundation), Biographical Social Networks on Wikipedia - A cross-cultural study of links that made history V2, last revised July 4, 2012, , Proceedings of WikiSym, 2012.

• See over view at: The Worrying Consequences of the Wikipedia Gender Gap, Technology review, April 19, 2012

• 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

• Damon Poeter, Infographic: Wikipedia's Gender Gap Exposed, PC magazine, August 8, 2012. Report on tech marketing agency KnockTwice research. Includes interesting assertion: "female editors are more likely to get blocked indefinitely on Wikipedia" whose actual source needs researching.

• Laniado, David; Castillo, Carlos; Kaltenbrunner, Andreas; Fuster Morell, Mayo (Aug 27–29, 2012). "Emotions and dialogue in a peer-production community: the case of Wikipedia" (PDF). WikiSym. Linz, Austria: ACM Press. {{cite conference}}: Unknown parameter |booktitle= ignored (|book-title= suggested) (help)
• Collier, B., & Bear, J. (2012). Conflict, criticism, or confidence. Proceedings of the ACM 2012 conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW ’12 (p. 383). New York, New York, USA: ACM Press. PDF • DOI
• Joseph Reagle, “Free as in sexist?” Free culture and the gender gap, First Monday, Volume 18, Number 1, January 2013

• See also Jared Spurbeck, Study Shows Gender Bias in Wikipedia, Linux, originally at Yahoo! News, January 2013

• Benjamin Mako Hill, Aaron Shaw, The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation, June 26, 2013, PLOS ONE, DOI
• ALHCLPP (13 November 2013). "Three Obstacles to Underrepresented Peoples on Wikipedia: the Role Edit-a-Thons Have to Play". The Black Sheep Journal. Retrieved 5 July 2013.

• Recent research: Survey participation bias analysis: More Wikipedia editors are female, married or parents than previously assumed, July 31, 2013

• “(Re)triggering Backlash: Responses to News About Wikipedia’s Gender Gap". Journal of Communication Inquiry, October 2013, 37 (4): 284. 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.

• Jonathan T. Morgan, Siko Bouterse, Heather Walls, Sarah Stierch, (2013) "Tea and sympathy: crafting positive new user experiences on wikipedia", In: Proceedings of the 2013 conference on Computer supported cooperative work. New York, NY, USA: ACM, CSCW '13, p. 839–848. DOI
• Laura Hale, The role of English Wikipedia’s top content creators in perpetuating gender bias, WikiNewsReporter, February 20, 2014
• Maximilian Klein, Sex Ratios in Wikidata, Wikipedias, and VIAF I & http://hangingtogether.org/?p=2986 Sex Ratios in Wikidata, Wikipedias, and VIAF I] - March 2013; Sex Ratios in Wikidata Part III, May 21, 2014
• Young-Ho Eom, Pablo Aragón, David Laniado, Andreas Kaltenbrunner, Sebastiano Vigna, Dima L. Shepelyansky, Interactions of cultures and top people of Wikipedia from ranking of 24 language editions, submitted on 28 May 2014 to Computer Science/Social and Information Networks, Cornell University
• Daniela Iosub, et al, "Emotions under Discussion: Gender, Status and Communication in Online Collaboration", PLOS ONE, 20 August 2014 Quote: "A persistent gender difference is that female contributors communicate in a manner that promotes social affiliation and emotional connection more than male editors, irrespective of their status in the community. Female regular editors are the most relationship-oriented, whereas male administrators are the least relationship-focused. Finally, emotional and linguistic homophily is prevalent: editors tend to interact with other editors having similar emotional styles."

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

• Jodi K. Biber, Dennis Doverspike, Daniel Baznik, Alana Cober, and Barbara A. Ritter, Sexual Harassment in Online Communications: Effects of Gender and Discourse Medium, CyberPsychology & Behavior. February 2002, 5(1): 33-42. DOI. Found that "in terms of gender differences, women rated online pictures and jokes as significantly more harassing than men."
• "The Gender Gap". Journalism.com. Pew Research Center. 23 May 2005. regarding women writers, researchers and academics' blogging to publish their thoughts and experiences.
• Johnston, Anne; Friedman, Barbara; Peach, Sara (2011). "Standpoint in Political Blogs: Voice, Authority, and Issues". Women's Studies. 40 (3): 269–298 – via Taylor & Francis. DOI
• Marilyn Livosky, Terry F. Pettijohn II, Jillian R. Capo, Reducing Sexist Attitudes as a Result of Completing an Undergraduate Psychology of Gender Course, Psychology and Education, An Interdisciplinary Journal, July 3, 2012, DOI.
• Report: Social network demographics in 2012, Pingdom, August 21, 2012. Comparison of numbers of women on the most popular social media sites.
• Robin Wilson (22 October 2012). "Scholarly Publishing's Gender Gap". The Chronicle of Higher Education.
• Women’s Media Center Report Finds Women Still Underrepresented, Misrepresented in U.S. Media, Women's Media Center, February 19, 2014

• See also overview Amanda Hess (19 February 2014). "Women Are Scarce in Journalism, Film, and TV, and the Numbers Aren't Budging". The XX Factor. Slate.

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

Wikipedia's gender gap on Slashdot

See "Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia". SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The reactions and comments there are depressingly supportive of the staus quo. SPECIFICO talk 18:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Back to Hatting vs. closing vs. immediate archiving

This topic was discussed here with a consensus that hatting/closing/immediate archiving would not be done. However, it's now been done twice by two contributers here (and an Admin) for reasons that were no more serious than about 6 things I (and others perhaps considering some comments above) would like to hat or close right now, including because of personal attacks. Are we going to have a consistent policy followed by everyone? If so, what shall it be? I don't want to start hatting or closing against what was discussed last time and perhaps others do not either. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:54, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Where are these "personal attacks"? Eric Corbett 20:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Carol, it's better if we just use common sense than have firm rules. The main page says: "Please be civil, respectful and stay on-topic. Off-topic threads are likely to be closed." So we can close or archive anything off-topic, or anything that descends into baiting or insults.

It's difficult to judge when threads are a mixture of things, so again we should just use common sense. If something seems helpful, leave it up; if not, close or archive. If something is upsetting you (or you think it might upset others watching), close or archive. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:12, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do within past precedents. Actually just the one derisive thread. Obviously there are interspersed personal comments (some which can be considered attacks) in several threads above which led to minor brouhahs which really are too complicated to hide. Probably best to hide or remove them when and if they happen again.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:19, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I see SPECIFICO reverted me. Perhaps I should have hatted just the derisive first few comments? In any case, another example of why we have to stop the comments derisive of the project when they first start. (Or ignore and immediately forget them if they are on the lower end of the aggravation scale, which I mostly do a lot anyway.) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Gender and video

You may have already seen this news item about Anita Sarkeesian. Here is "Damsel in Distress: Part 2 - Tropes vs Women in Video Games", well worth watching even if you don't edit in video topics: http://youtu(DOT)be/toa_vH6xGqs. (Replace the dot.) Does this raise some questions about the use of video as a RS? Or about adding some of this information to articles about specific videos mentioned in the series? —Neotarf (talk) 02:27, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

You might want to query the folks at RSN.Two kinds of pork (talk) 03:20, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you present it to them yourself if you think they may be interested. I posted it here as an FYI for consideration by the women, in the context of their project. —Neotarf (talk) 10:31, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Does this raise some questions about the use of video as a RS was your original question, no? I'm not sure what your last statement means. Two kinds of pork (talk) 14:43, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikiproject Women writers

I've started a new project, WP:WOMWRI, which may interest you. There are so many novelists and poets and journalists and bloggers whose articles haven't been created yet or need improvement. If you have translation skills, take a look at all the articles about women writers on other language Wikipedias and you'll see that many of them don't have a presence on the English language one. The WP is hours old, so there's no formal invitation template yet, just this note from me to you. If you're up for it, roll up your sleeves and let's launch this WP with vigor. --Rosiestep (talk) 21:42, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Great. Linked to it on main page under Wikiprojects. As you can see under our To Do list, there are a bunch of different lists of women's bios in all categories that need creating or updating from stub. You may be able to find some more writers there. Maybe someday I (or someone else) will integrate them all into a list somwhere sensible! Also, I even updated three women feminist writers' bios today. Yeah!!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Carol. --Rosiestep (talk) 19:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Active nomination of women for administrators

• If each subscriber to this WikiProject nominates their best choice of a women editor for becoming an administrator, then this would help address an important part of the recent call by Jimmy Wales for "doubling down" on the issue of the gender gap during this calendar year. During the month of September an active drive for the nomination of women for becoming administrators would allow for the evaluation of their background before the end of 2014. The "glass ceiling" limiting the number of women administrators at Wikipedia is seen as limiting progress toward gender parity described in the 2014 book An Ethnography of Wikipedia.

Proposal moved from main page: 22:54, August 31, 2014‎ LawrencePrincipe via Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not all the familiar with the process so it's always good to link to relevant policy page. I get impression individuals first have to make it known they want to be admins. Right now we have a problem with just getting women to stick with editing, so admin is a big step. There probably are some women who would like it and we should find a way to support that. But such affirmative action steps do invite back lash so we have to be careful how we do it. Others' thoughts? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:12, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

We very much need more female admins. They do need to be suitable and willing; and perhaps there's a privacy/pressure issue in nominating onwiki without first seeking their agreement. I wonder whether it could be done via the email facility, or if email is not enabled, by a cautious note on their talkpage ("Would you consider ...")? Tony (talk) 04:10, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

RfA can be a cesspool. I've been on wiki 8 years and seldom if ever had any interest in getting the mop. If you have ever been in the least controversial, every enemy you have made on wiki will show up to oppose you. That said, some women have sailed through RfA, such as my friend User:Dana boomer, if they have managed to stay under the radar or keep an extremely positive tone. I'm not one of those people (sometimes I get curious to do an RfA just to see what would happen, but who needs that drama?) Montanabw^(talk) 13:45, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Ditto. Definitely a job for low profile diplomats :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Anyway, I just remembered that as far as the "To Do" list goes, we already have "actively recruit women editors and administrators" under "Affirmative Action measures". And as I've proposed before and may work on soon, if we have a page that fleshes out various proposal, those who want to can get some tips on how to. I know I'd encourage an experienced woman to do it if she showed the slightest interest.Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 14:05, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

@Montanabw, @Carolmooredc; There has to be some assumption that women editors who have completed five thousand or more edits would be able to go through the RfA vetting process as experienced editors. The point learned from numerous organizations and institutions is that the editors (non-Admin) do not get very far unless they are supported by management (Admin at Wikipedia). @Carolmooredc; Unless there are more women admins supporting a growing number of women editors, one risks a catch22 where the new women editors are driven away for the same reason of not enough women supporters. A study by Cotter and Hermsen has stated that: “The popular notion of glass ceiling effects implies that gender (or other) disadvantages are stronger at the top of the hierarchy than at lower levels and that these disadvantages become worse later in a person's career.”(David A. Cotter, Joan M. Hermsen, Seth Ovadia and Reeve Vanneman (2001): The Glass Ceiling Effect. Social Forces, Vol. 80, No. 2 (Dec., 2001), pp. 655-681 Published by: Oxford University Press.) One research study by Matsa and Miller suggests that a possible remedy to the glass ceiling could be increasing the number of women on corporate boards, which could subsequently lead to increases in the number of women working in top management positions.(David A. Matsa and Amalia R. Miller (2011): Chipping away at the Glass Ceiling: Gender Spillovers in Corporate Leadership. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 2011, 101:3, 635–639.) The priority for dealing with the "glass ceiling" is to get more women admin first at Wikipedia, and in that way they can help foster a more helpful environment for attracting more women editors. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry but I cannot let the "glass ceiling" remark go without comment. I am well aware of the gender gap, and know many of the reasons for the disparity in numbers of editors. However, I don't recall ever seeing any discussion about the notion that female editors have any more difficulty getting the mop than male editors. I've followed hundreds of RfA requests, and do not recall that gender is even known in many cases. Does someone have some numbers to back this up? If it is a real issue, I'm on board trying to fix it, but I'd like to see some evidence that it is actually a problem. I do not own a copy of An Ethnography of Wikipedia. Is there a quote from the book supporting this claim?--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@S Philbrick; Yes, the Ethnography book by Jemielniak covers the discussion of the strong application of the principle that business management theory commentary on managers applies by direct analogy to administrators at Wikipedia in Chapters 1 and 2 in his new book which you mention. The statistics on women admins is taken as the 15% figure for women editors in general at Wikipedia applied without prejudice to women admins as well. Both previous editors responding above have talked about the tough vetting process of RfAs in the past, which I have stated should not be a deterrent in and of itself to nominating strong women editors for admin. The Cotter and Hermson material I quoted above (and all the others writing in business management theory) state that the "glass ceiling" on managers states that experience in the business world teaches over and over that the more that management reflects the policies desired, then the more prevalent do those policies become in the general workplace of employees (editors). That is, for Wikipedia, the larger the number of women admins, then business experience in general teaches that more women in the workplace (women editors) follows. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 14:59, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So the figures are an unsupported extrapolation from rather dodgey data. WP is not comparable to business management, as the gender of most editors is undisclosed. Eric Corbett 17:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I asked if a quote from the book supported the claim. You said "Yes" but your explanation equates to "No". if female admins are in the same ratio as editors, then almost by definition there is no glass ceiling. However, I'm not ready to leap to that conclusion, because, if I read you correctly, the author didn't know and just made the assumption. However, if the author assumed the same ratio, that's equivalent to assuming there is no glass ceiling. So one of two things are true based on your summary: Either the author assumes, without evidence that there is no glass ceiling, or the author has no evidence one way or the other.--S Philbrick(Talk) 13:20, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

User:LawrencePrincipe I purchased a copy of An Ethnography of Wikipedia and I have now read chapters 1 and 2. I don't see any mention of a glass ceiling. Unfortunately the version is not searchable so it is possible I missed it. Can you give me a more specific location?--S Philbrick(Talk) 17:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but I believe research shows a greater percentage of female admins than female editors. Someone could do the sums on Arbitrators, since the numbers are low, if the genders are common knowledge. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC).

I really don't think there's much interest in the facts as opposed to the unchallengeable rhetoric. Eric Corbett 17:15, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's not revert to stale affirmative action knee-jerk solutions which alienate more of the public than they empower. I propose a different approach. First off, it's not female admins we need, but gender-aware, neutral admins. Second, there are many eyes on this talk page and the other feminism-related pages. On these articles, project, and talk pages we see some editors (male and female) distinguishing themselves with solid constructive participation. We see others who are unable to collaborate effectively. In time, I hope to see many of the participants on these pages elevated to Admin, without regard to race, ethnicity, gender, or place of birth. SPECIFICO talk 18:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The WMF isn't really concerned about editors though, they're easily replaceable. So let's turn the question on its head. What are the topics that female readers think are missing from WP? Eric Corbett 18:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

to Rich Farmbrough: a study showing if they identify as female (before or after becoming Admins), what kind of tasks they take on, which tasks they most engage in and why, would be interesting. I'm wondering if it would show they largely do not identify as female and lay low and get along with everyone, earning few enemies to their becoming Admins. In which case stealth recruiting would be the best policy :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 19:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

So then be sneaky[1] about it, eh? Where did you get the strange idea that sneakiness is OK? That's exactly the tactic that the antiabortion folks are using as they chip away at women's right to choose. If you are not aware of their tactics you might read our many abortion related articles, written mostly by men, BTW. Gandydancer (talk) 20:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: Some individuals evidently aren't allowed to make little jokes, even about the fact that we really don't know from user names if most editors are male or female. Maybe if I put four big s I can get away with the occasional joke? Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see the alleged facts supported by some reliable evidence, rather than this interminable grandstanding based on false preconceptions. Your mileage may vary of course. Eric Corbett 23:23, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm rather saddened by this gender war, as until quite recently I never gave a second thought as to whether an editor was male or female. Now it seems I'm obliged to though, even if they don't self-identify as female. Eric Corbett 21:03, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

That's because of privilege rendering gender invisible to you. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 03:15, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Time to throw in the towel Eric. What with "I was just joking" on one side and invisibility on the other, we're screwed. Gandydancer (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You could well be right. I suppose by "privilege" is meant the fact that I'm male? I've never thought of that as much of a privilege, but regardless, I never cease to be amazed by the conclusions drawn from some pretty dubious research. Is there a gender gap here on WP? Quite possibly. What is it? Nobody really knows. What effect does it have on WP's content? Again, nobody really knows. Not a very good basis for launching a crusade the primary purpose of which appears to be to alienate every male editor by imposing a series of affirmative actions. Eric Corbett 17:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I think it's important that this page discuss demonstrated facts and concerns rather than idle conjecture. SPECIFICO talk 19:07, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

One thing to consider, and this connects with what Eric was asking, is that there are quite a few male editors who happily work on biographies and other articles about women, and by supporting and recognizing their efforts we may be contributing to closing the content gap in the interim, while still working on recruiting more female editors, of course.—Anne Delong (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Quite. I'd bet that I've done far more work on biographies of females than many of the most vociferous anti-male commentators here have done. When working on Enid Blyton for instance, the fact that she was female was hardly in my mind. The important thing was that she is one of the most widely read authors in the world, male or female. I'd also like to mention Margaret Thatcher, one of the most important figures in 20th-century British history. Where were the members of this project then, when there was work that needed to be done? Eric Corbett 19:35, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey, Eric, be fair now! There are millions of articles, and innumerable excellent authors and famous politicians to write about; nobody can possibly work on all of the ones that might be of interest. Anyway, it's not a contest. And thank you for working on those ones you mentioned, while the rest of us were concentrating on other articles. —Anne Delong (talk) 21:24, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Some of you may have been, but most of those commenting here weren't. Eric Corbett 21:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• One of the things I like about Wikipedia is that there is no real limit on how many people can participate. This is the same with Administrators. It's not like the "glass ceiling" in a company, where there are only a certain number of positions available and women are competing head-to-head with men for them. Wikipedia always needs more admins! It's not necessary for an editor to first express interest in being an admin; in fact, often people are approached by one or more other editors, who express confidence in them and suggest that they would make good admins. It's true that "diplomatic" editors have a better chance to be accepted, and maybe that's a good idea, since "speak-and-act first, think later types" can do a lot of damage with the admin tools. Surely, though, there are plenty of calm, rational, experienced female editors who could be nominated. I would like to point out, though, that since becoming an admin earlier this year I actually have done less content creation, because I have to do my own deletions, historymerges, etc., and it all takes time. Also, there's no point in nominating or supporting at RfA someone without the right mix of experience, just because they are female, because RfA is not an election, and you have to give good reasons. —Anne Delong (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

  RfA is a popularity contest though, and it would be relatively easy for a project such as this one to force a nomination through regardless of its merits. Eric Corbett 19:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

This topic area could do with a lot less grandstanding.Two kinds of pork (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Delong, @Eric Corbett; The question about the value of the stats of a 15% women editor ratio is that they are good enough for Jimmy Wales to use them in his BBC interview last month regarding failing to reach Sue Gardner's gender goals by 2015. The "glass ceiling" issue remains the most confrontational issue because even if Wikipedia finds the magic formula to attract more women editors, the business management theory and experience still teaches that if you don't fix the management problem first, then the old management (85% male) will just continue, either knowingly or unknowingly, to drive away the new women editors the same as they have been doing for years and years (long-term systemic bias). Good intentions, even best intentions such as those expressed above of being open-minded and diplomatic, have been shown again and again in business management models to fail if the "glass ceiling" problem is not addressed first. Wikipedia continues to fail to attract women editors, and without addressing the "glass ceiling" issue first of getting more women administrators on board, then Wikipedia as a whole fails to achieve the gender parity which Jimmy Wales encourages by calling for "doubling down" on the issue of increasing the number of women editing Wikipedia. The short section on "Active Nomination of Women Administrators" posted at the top of this Talk section should be added to this WikiProject Page. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 22:39, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy using a statistic does not make it right! All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC).

It does in many people's eyes, which is why I regard Jimmy Wales as one of the most toxic influences on WP. He's got no idea about writing an encyclopedia, and instead chooses to concentrate on trying to build some kind of hopeless Ayn Rand inspired Utopia. WP would be better off without him. Eric Corbett 23:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

• Eric Corbett - this project can muster maybe half a dozen !votes at AfD, maybe it would do better at RfA, but I don't see why. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:51, 2 September 2014 (UTC).
  

This is a singularly poor place to try out "jokes", the response to which which is culturally conditioned and can only foment misunderstanding and needless distractions. SPECIFICO talk 23:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who was joking, it certainly wasn't me. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:24, 3 September 2014 (UTC).

I was referring to this [2], which can appear to be a tactic to evade responsibility for ones actions. At any rate, it's best to let it lie. SPECIFICO talk 00:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it's best to let it lie at all. Throughout written history women have not been allowed to speak out about their place in society. Now that we have finally arrived at a place where we are able to speak, we no longer need to resort to sneaky tactics, and it mars the feminist perspective to say that it is acceptable. I have long spoken out for woman's rights, but I would not join this project because it appears that Carol, who seems to be the main spokesperson, sees this as a battle of the women against the men, who have been repeatedly characterized as wild dogs who have staked the territory out to keep females away. That sort of attitude will only force "the men" to dig their heels in and become defensive--And I don't blame them for that. Gandydancer (talk) 14:41, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

First of all, the "we" gives me the impression you are a woman. First time I knew it. I don't see any indication on your user page, unless I missed it.

Regarding the now deleted "Mad Dog" entry on my user page. I'd forgotten about it and just removed it as a dated reaction to extreme hostility some guys had towards the whole gender gap issue on Jimmy Wales talk page in July. The comment was directed at that subset of hostile males and the minority of extremely territorial males at wikipedia. My focus was - and is - "We seem to forget that humans have both an upper brain (the cerebrum) which is relatively rational and a lower brain (the brainstem and cerebellum) that deals with automatic and unconscious functions." AKA "rationality", which seemed lacking in those discussions.

If male editors can throw the word "c*nt" around loosely and defend it, why can't females engage in a little provocative analysis of why they do it?

The problem of males reacting in hostility to things they think women are thinking at this project seems to be a bigger problem than my joke about recruiting women editors, written as a nervous reaction to constant and unrelenting criticism by a few males of this project. I guess I fell for the bait! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 15:39, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

OK, since you insist (to your detriment) on prolonging this thread... Let's be honest. You were not making a "joke". You backtracked and called it a joke when you were challenged. That kind of dishonest battleground behavior is damaging to this Project. If you can't control yourself, please consider departing the Project and leaving the work to those of us who have come here to collaborate on this important initiative. SPECIFICO talk 16:13, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Lesson in human psychology: sneaky people don't announce their sneaky plans on public spots where people who love to jump on every single thing they say are going to jump all over their sneaky plot. They do it in private emails, etc. Geeeeeeeeeeeezzzzzz.... Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 16:32, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

You did. Eric Corbett 17:25, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

New paper

Interesting paper on, inter alia, women on Wikipedia:

• Daniela Iosub, et al, "Emotions under Discussion: Gender, Status and Communication in Online Collaboration", PLOS ONE, 20 August 2014.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:40, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Quoted shared on Email list: A persistent gender difference is that female contributors communicate in a manner that promotes social affiliation and emotional connection more than male editors, irrespective of their status in the community. Female regular editors are the most relationship-oriented, whereas male administrators are the least relationship-focused. Finally, emotional and linguistic homophily is prevalent: editors tend to interact with other editors having similar emotional styles.

Of course, they're talking more about voluntary interaction as opposed to some of the negative types that women too often end up being subjected to. I'm still waiting for a detailed study of those interactions! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:33, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The following sentence from the abstract is apposite. ..editors expressing more anger connect more with one another

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 23:32, 2 September 2014 (UTC).

Interestingly this paper, which is on the talk page contributions of editors with over 100 article talk page contributions supports the claim that the difference between admin and non admin gender ratios is negligible, and, if anything there are a bigger percentage of female admins than of female non-admins (in this case 6.42% compared to 6.26%). This paper only deals with self-identified gender via the Preferences tab, as far as I can see, which we are aware massively under-reports females compared with males.

Secondly it provides the source for the 16.1% female editor figure. The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited a paper I had not previously read.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC).

That (latter) paper was linked in my blog post. :P Speaking of figures, I am currently trying to find out what the gender split was in the July 2012 WMF editor survey. To this day, I don't think the figure has been reported (in the April 2011 editor survey, it was 8.5%). If I've missed it and it's available somewhere, please let me know. As far as I can tell, at Wikimania 2013 only the 16.1% figure from Shaw & Hill was reported (which is based on the 12.64% figure from the 2010 UNU survey, revised upwards based on assumed sampling bias).

By the way, returning to the Emotions under discussion paper, I don't think it matters if the male pool included some female editors who chose not to identify as female. All it would have done would have been to make the males appear slightly more relationship-oriented than they really are. ;) The conclusions from that paper (I mean the five paragraphs or so at the end, rather than the short paragraph that is part of the abstract) are really worth reading. I thought they put it very well. Cheers, Andreas JN466 20:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I remember there was a problem with the 2012 survey and the banner not showing. People were complaining that they hadn't been able to respond in time. Andreas, do you have a link to the survey results? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:07, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

See [3] and [4] on Meta. The results have still not been released, as far as I can tell. I've pinged User:Tbayer (WMF) a few times these past days, but haven't heard back as yet. I also asked Phoebe on the Gendergap list, no reply. :( Andreas JN466 21:26, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

That's odd. I hope Tilman responds to your ping because it would be good to have an updated figure.

I agree that the last few paragraphs of that paper are worth discussing, so I'm posting them here. They speak to some of the issues people have mentioned above:

We find that higher-status editors promote a neutral, impersonal and more formal conversation tone in Wikipedia. They “rule with reason”, and maintain a mildly positive tone – a crucial aspect to the good functioning of the collaborative project. Nevertheless, it is not clear whether administrator neutrality fulfills the needs of the community in the long run. Peer-production communities are settings of voluntary contribution, and emotions play an important role in group dynamics, requiring expression. Relationship-oriented communication has been found to increase contributions [24] and, interestingly, regular editors use this linguistic style more than administrators. Consequently, the tone of group moderators, and more generally the interaction spaces of such communities should be adapted to facilitate both positive exchanges and the venting out of negative emotion in a constructive manner.

For this aim, the role of female editors is paramount. Indeed our analyses (both automatic and the brief manual analysis of content) provide strong evidence that female editors engage in relationship-oriented speech that is conducive to a positive working environment. Interestingly, this result holds also for female administrators, who diverge significantly from male administrators by being more relationship-oriented. By increasing the diversity of leadership styles and by promoting an atmosphere of openness and concern for others, women leaders play a pivotal role in such online spaces.

These results have implications also for the gender gap issue. Together with the finding of [20] that women tend to interact preferentially with other women, our results suggest that being able to involve more women and to give them more space in the community would also result in a virtuous cycle of female participation, through the creation of a communication environment where they feel more comfortable.

SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:54, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

One has to exercise extreme care handling the conclusions of research papers, especially where the authors (usually in common with the matrix community) assume that they have a background knowledge. Take for example Together with the finding of [20] that women tend to interact preferentially with other women, our results suggest that being able to involve more women and to give them more space in the community would also result in a virtuous cycle of female participation, through the creation of a communication environment where they feel more comfortable.

1. "give them more space in the community" is undefined.
2. "would also result in a" - this is not something that can be deduced at all. There is no evidence given that homophily attracts.
3. "virtuous cycle of female participation" - How do we know it would be virtuous? We have problem editors of both genders, while we want more editors, we do not want more problem editors.
4. "a communication environment where they feel more comfortable" - the assumption is that homophily is due to comfort, whereas other research suggests that gender homophily is due to subject.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC).

Average interests

Anne Delong made the point that simply because the means of two distributions are not identical, it doesn't mean that they are not very close.

(Later in the post, she also made some generic points about welcoming people and identifying barriers which I think would command universal support.)

My concern here is that we do not know the base distributions in, for example, interest. If we did we could correlate these with Wikipedia coverage, and see if the distribution of each gender editors is concomitant with their interests (and even answer the basic question "Is the average Wikipedia article of more interest to males than females?").

Some academic data is available (probably a lot more than I can quickly find), for example 43% of boys were interested in "atoms and molecules" compared with 23% of girls, "What we should eat to be healthy" interested 53% of girls and 36 % of boys. While this is at high school age, it is a at least a datum.

In terms of subjects studied, we are on more slippery ground. More girls study psychology than boys, and more girls (in the UK at least) go into law. However one has to take a subject at university, and choices are not always made purely on interest. Questions such as "Would you read a psychology journal in your spare time?" would be needed to establish a level of interest, rather than simply a vocational choice.

So there is the difficulty in establishing areas of interest. We may (again as an isolated datum) draw on the Wikifashion experience to show that topic probably is relevant to the gender mix editing a particular article. And this is indeed supported somewhat by the PLOS article mentioned above.

Secondly we need to take into account Baron-Cohen's systematising-empathising scale. All encyclopaedias systematise, but Wikipedia more than most, because we embrace NPOV, avoid COI, ban Original Research and Synthesis.

In order to address the gender gap we need to understand it, and it seems to me we lack the raw data to establish the most basic facts. Without these we risk following folklore, and responding with folk remedies.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:18, 3 September 2014 (UTC).

Rich: Since you are interested in research I want to make sure you've seen the two dozen Wikipedia-oriented studies at the Draft: Resources page/Research subsection. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:44, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, that is a useful list. I have read most, but not all of it. (The free access material that is!) All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:53, 3 September 2014 (UTC).

I wrote on Research draft page that blog entries would update us, based on WMF assertions there. I see I hadn't listed any, so just searched the blog again for "editor survey 2012" and in first pass didn't see anything. But a little unfocused right now if anyone else wants to look. I did see complaints on the talk page of the 2012 Survey talk page with complaints and "updates" as of Aug 2014 if you want to check it out. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:51, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Considering Anne's example of two Gaussian curves (a good first approximation for many phenomena), and applying it to male and female cohorts of the human population, with the X axis being "Propensity to contribute to Wikipedia" it would be interesting to see the separation in standard deviations required for the outcomes that are observed.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC).

(Anne Delong - may be of interest.)

Given the figures for editors with >100 (>=?) edits to talk pages, and assuming the same standard deviation for male and female the cut-off is as follows

Propensity to make >=100 article talk page edits on English Wikipedia, required SD for male and female editors, assuming normal distribution with same SD.

Gender	Number	Probability	Standard deviations
Female	165	2.28E-008	5.47
Male	2613	3.61E-007	4.96

This is a fairly stunning .5 difference in mean. Of course it could just as easily be difference in SD, if the male SD is 1.1 times the female, for example, or most likely a combination of the two.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:00, 4 September 2014 (UTC).

WP:ANI on “disruption of Wikiproject”

Here is an ANI posting regarding problems at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. (Note: I think there have been enough complaints here about this sort of thing and I gave plenty of advanced warning this would be necessary if it didn't stop. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

This is long overdue. Sumana Harihareswara's keynote at the 2014 Wiki Conference USA has been pointed out to me in this context, in particular her statement that if you do not specifically exclude some people, you will exclude others by default.

We need to start treating hospitality as a first class virtue, and see that it is the seed of everything else. Alberto Brandolini said “The amount of energy necessary to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.” It has a big cost when someone treats others badly. If someone is ruining the hospitality of a place by using their liberty in a certain way, we need to stop making excuses, and start on the path of exclusion. If we exclude no one explicitly, we are just excluding a lot of people implicitly.

This part is also worth quoting at length, as it has to do with how you set up spaces (like this one) so that people can participate positively:

The slides and notes from that session are up. And one of them is to think carefully about what we do in super-public spaces versus how we act in invite-only space or quite private spaces, and to think about what those spaces are. I think of the spaces that are more secret or private as places where certain people can sort of rest and vent and collaborate, and ask the questions they feel afraid of asking in public, so they can gain the strength and confidence to go further out, into the invite-only spaces or the very public spaces. I think we’ve seen this in my own experience at Hacker School, and we see that also the invite-only spaces, or spaces where everybody coming in agrees to follow the same rules so it’s a place where you feel safer -- these are like tidepools, places where certain kinds of people and certain kinds of behaviour can be nurtured and grown so that it’s ready to go out into the wider ocean. We can also modify existing spaces. We can set up informal but real contracts or promises with specific people or in specific larger spaces. I’ve done this. I’ve said “Hey, for this conversation – I know in the past we’ve had trouble assuming good faith of each other. Will you try – I will try extra hard to assume good faith of you if you’ll assume good faith of me.” And that actually made things go a lot better.

Assuming good faith is just one of the recent problems that has been side-tracking this project.

—Neotarf (talk) 12:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I heard Sumana's speech at the time she made it. I was particularly taken by the notion of hospitality, and that has changed the way I look at some of our written and unwritten conventions. That said, we might have differing opinions on who the bs generators are. I am 100% certain that there have been and will be more examples of gender bias. I'd like to be part of the effort to identify it and root it out. Yet when I see charges made, and polite requests for evidence, the evidence is often scant, or false positives or "in progress". When those asking for evidence are rudely addressed, who is the bs generator?--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:04, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Sphilbrick: Above you see there is a section on the Draft resources page which presents lots of evidence. Your post made me realize we'll just have to go through section by section and then you can study the "evidence" yourself. So see above What needs removing from research section. Gathering and presenting evidence is something I take seriously myself. So feel free to report on what you see in this first round! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie)

(ec) @Sphilbrick: Interesting questions. Part of the answer lies in the goals of the project itself: to address the gender gap problem. Like everyone else, the members of the group have limited time available for volunteering, and have chosen to put their energies into this area. The question of systemic bias and gender has been addressed extensively by the foundation, not to mention the criticism of Wikipedia's gender problem in a number of publications. If you want to know more, you can read the article on Systemic bias or the Wikimedia Movement Strategic Plan. Carol has also thoughtfully linked to articles at the Geek feminism wiki [5] and [6].

If someone does not understand the systemic bias, or does not think the gender gap is a problem, you would think they would find another area to contribute, instead of trolling this group. Are math groups constantly distracted by individuals demanding to have the concept of integers explained, and complaining that they have been rudely addressed unless the group re-diverts their energy to engaging with repeated demands for explanations of square roots?

It may also be helpful to realize that the focus of the group seems to be in examining the research and developing strategies based on current understanding, and not on polemics. I probably don't have to remind you that anything based on the scientific method, as contrasted with belief-based systems, often advances slowly and in a piecemeal fashion. Elaborate "proofs" are often not available, even if there were, demanding someone else stop whatever they are doing go look them up for you is not particularly helpful. Better to look yourself, or ask them if they know where you can look. Framing the question in terms of "proofs" is also implies that the group's goals can not be validated until every single objection made by male outsiders can be answered to their satisfaction--in other words, it is the pointy way of framing a question that is often objectionable, rather than the question itself.

A final issue is the way some individuals are intersecting with women's issues elsewhere on the project. What would you think if someone who was notorious for dropping the n-bomb at every opportunity suddenly showed up at Barack Obama's BLP to make "polite requests for evidence" of racism? A quick look at current arbcom request might be enlightening in that regard. —Neotarf (talk) 18:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You misrepresent the issue. If a charge of "entrenched sexism" is made – nothing to do with the gender gap per se – then it is not unreasonable to ask for some evidence in support of said claim. Unless you're attempting to dishonestly push a feminist agenda of course. This project would do better to stick to the verifiable facts instead of hyperbolic rhetoric. Eric Corbett 18:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Is there anyone in the entire project who does not believe you have nothing but contempt for women? [7] How can your continued monopolizing of this project page be viewed as anything but trolling. —Neotarf (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Let's face a couple of facts here Neotarf. If you had made that completely baseless comment about anyone else you would now be blocked, or at least warned. The fact that you remain free to propagate such lies here tells its own story. Eric Corbett 20:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't exactly see you rushing in with a lot of diffs to prove your point, Eric. On the other hand, my link pretty much speaks for itself. —Neotarf (talk) 20:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

One more comment from you in that same vein and I'll be raising an AN/I report for personal attacks. Eric Corbett 21:13, 4 September 2014I(UTC)

Ah, I see there would be no point, as you've retired. What are you doing here then? Eric Corbett 21:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

What do I do here? These days I mostly perform small tasks for the Signpost. I somehow ended up with this page watchlisted after I posted some Signpost-related content here. So, what are you doing here. —Neotarf (talk) 21:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

One challenge is that many of the contributors conflate systemic bias and gender gap. That confusion is starkly noticeable in the title - note "WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force" as if gender gap were a specific case of systemic bias. It isn't. The gender gap is an easily identifiable phenomenon (though the causes and solutions are not yet quite so clear). In contrast, the gender bias issue is not the same thing. They are, to be sure, related, but one can have a gender gap without necessarily having a gender bias. Both deserve thoughtful identification of solutions, but the list of solutions are not likely to be exactly the same. If anyone is wondering how dense I must be to ask for examples, please note I am NOT asking for examples of the gender gap—they are ubiquitous. I am asking for example of gender bias, which I believe exists, but I'd like to see the examples before jumping to conclusion regarding solutions.--S Philbrick(Talk) 19:16, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Just offhand I would point you to Wikipedia:Systemic bias and Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias; the articles cited there should point you to more concrete examples. Or you might try talking privately to some female editors, they might be willing to say more offline than in a hostile editing environment such as this page. —Neotarf (talk) 20:03, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I've spoken to many female editors offline, and pretty much all of them find aspects of this project to be insulting to women. Eric Corbett 20:34, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

If that is the case, why aren't they here speaking for themselves? —Neotarf (talk) 21:11, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

They are. Eric Corbett 21:17, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Diffs, or it didn't happen. —Neotarf (talk) 21:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

You really need to look at all the postings here, not just focus on mine. Eric Corbett 22:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As a female editor, Neotarf, I find aspects of this project insulting to women. I also think that it can be difficult, even pointless, to raise viewpoints that differ from the strongest voice(s) here - and at the moment those voices are established members of this project, not "interlopers" as has been suggested. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:17, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So, Nikkimaria, what direction do you think the project should take, and is there anything specifically that would make you want to participate? (And BTW, I hope you pick up the mop again some day.) —Neotarf (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yes, excellent. And the basis of a wonderful essay, we may hope :-) !!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:35, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Effect of 16/84 ratio

This "male privilege" thing is something I don't get at all. But here's one simple question the answer to which may help the mad-dog male editors such as myself. Assuming the claimed 16% of female editors is somewhere in the right ballpark, what effect has that had on WP's content? Or what would be different if it was 50%? Eric Corbett 18:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We would have more articles of interest to women. That's pretty straight forward, given that it is a volunteer project and we edit those articles each of us is interested in. We would also have fewer (proportionally) editors calling each other a specific four letter word. Cough.--GRuban (talk) 19:49, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

But what would those articles be? The female editors I've worked with have been interested in stuff as wide ranging as industrial archaeology, coal mining, medieval history, mythology, transport ... the list goes on. I myself have written on some might consider to be girlie topics such as nursery rhymes and childrens' TV programmes. Eric Corbett 20:27, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

(not sure where to put this but I'll just squeeze it in here) In my opinion, yes, it would change WP if we had more women editors. I'll give just one example. Without woman editor user:WhatamIdoing we would not have the excellent article Pink ribbon culture in which Waid is very critical of the "breast cancer culture" (and I am as well). While men understand the broader women's issues, I doubt that they'd get this one - actually very few women do either. In fact, I'd love to get Waid's opinions here because IMO she is one of our best editors and would likely have some good ideas. Gandydancer (talk) 21:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Too many assumptions. My wife was diagnosed with breast cancer two years ago, and it was a difficult time. I frankly resent the idea that I don't get it. Some of us unwanted "male dogs" are actually married to women. Eric Corbett 21:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric I was misunderstood, as I knew I would be just as soon as I read my post. I know you are capable of understanding. What I am getting at is that most men would not make the additions to the breast cancer article that Waid did about Pink Ribbon awareness. The Pink Ribbon awareness is a corporate money making scam and I know that men could get that - it's just that IMO it took a woman, because of her being more likely to be aware of the illness in the first place, to point it out. I am assuming, but certainly could be wrong, that men are more interested in prostate cancer. Let me know what you think because I find it extremely difficult to point out the little ways that I think it may make a difference to have more women here. To have objections to my assumptions helps me to think out my own position. Gandydancer (talk) 22:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Speaking as a male dog I don't give prostate cancer a second thought, it'll either kill me or it won't. Breast cancer has a cosmetic and social element to it though. My wife had three operations to rebuild her breast to make her look "normal" again. I don't need anyone telling me that I don't understand the implications of breast cancer. Eric Corbett 22:54, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you might well know more about breast cancer's psychosocial effects than I do, but you still didn't write the article. Why not? Well, not exactly "why not you" personally (because anyone who has lived with a disease like that might prefer not to spend any extra time thinking about it), but why not any of the thousands of men who edit here? That pretty much seems to be the problem: if the article is a "feminine" subject, then articles don't get created or expanded. We've got plenty of guys willing to write about men's sports, or cars, or other traditionally "masculine" subjects, but the "feminine" ones get no attention.

A few years ago, I tried to work on some officially feminine articles for a while, after reading that the gender imbalance among editors was screwing up article content. I found that the research was largely correct: basic articles on non-sexual "feminine" subjects, like Infant, were pretty much a disaster. In 2009, another female editor and I made some progress on Reform mathematics; teaching younger children is a "feminine" area that Wikipedia has so far neglected. Breast cancer awareness took a couple of months out of 2010. Wedding-related articles have not been very much fun, but benefit from regular attention to keep out spammy pictures of the see-me-at-my-wedding sort. I enjoyed working on Preschool education briefly in 2011. A year and a half ago, I doubled the length of Baby food. I sometimes pick at some medical articles like Breast cancer or Pregnancy when they turn up in my watchlist, but there's relatively little collaboration, and often a surfeit of men willing to criticize. (One of the nice things about editing articles like Preschool education and Baby food is that nobody works on it, so nobody tells you that you should be doing more, while they sit on the sidelines.) I've considered other articles, like Reading comprehension, but I don't have any good sources for them.

I suppose the question is this: Why aren't you working on those kinds of articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm not a medical expert, and I appreciate that many people come to WP for accurate medical information. So why would you expect me to fiddle about with medical topics? What exactly are you trying to pin the blame on me for? Eric Corbett 02:10, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer It is fairly well established that "men's diseases" are a bit of a medical ghetto (or they were about 10 years ago). See for example Prostate_cancer#Society_and_culture. As this Blomberg article says most men simply do not like to talk about such a disease. Wikipedia has 72 articles (and three subcategories) in Category:Breast cancer and only 31 articles (and no subcategories) in Category:Prostate cancer, reflecting the societal bias. Of course breast cancer is not a solely female illness, just as heart disease is not the male illness popular culture makes it out to be.

Very few men are interested in prostate cancer, testicular cancer or other male diseases, though Movember has probably changed this somewhat. Indeed the figure I cited about healthy eating indicates a general male indifference to health compared to women. This may well be one of the reasons men die years younger than women. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 02:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC).

What is your opinion, Eric. Assuming the 15/85 ratio is correct, what effect has that had on content? What would be different if the mix was roughly 50/50? Lightbreather (talk) 20:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Very little would be my answer. What are the topics that would be of more interest to females than males? But let's not misunderstand, I'm in no way against increasing the number of female editors if that can be done in a rational way, just as I'd like to see a lot more older editors. In fact my experience has been that female editors are often much easier to work with, not because they can be browbeaten – which they can't – but because they tend to be more thorough than males. Eric Corbett 20:45, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

So your position is that having an editorial body that is 15-16% men has had a negligible effect on WP content, and that a more balanced gender mix would not have much of an effect on content either. OK. So, aside from the fact that you find them often easier to work with, why do you want more women WP editors? Lightbreather (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm tired and I'm fed up with these repeated accusations that I'm some kind of monster misogynist. Can you can find any evidence at all to support the accusation that I hate all women? Eric Corbett 00:30, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Where on earth has anyone said you hate all women? The point is, you spend a lot of time making statements and asking questions that indicate you think this task force is bogus. Here's what you wrote on your own talk page about it: "Yes, my fundamental objection is to all these conclusions being drawn without a scrap of supporting evidence. The project will of course come to nothing though."[8]

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)

If you don't believe in it, can't you just leave it alone? Lightbreather (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Why should I be expected to leave lies alone? Eric Corbett 01:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

The answer to that lies primarily in standpoint theory. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I want a broader mix of editors, not too much bothered about this fashionable gender gap. Eric Corbett 21:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Listen, Eric, you're insistent when one of your questions goes unanswered, so I'm going to be with you: Why do you want a broader mix of editors? What differentiates your desire for a broader mix from mine? I think the quality of the encyclopedia will be improved by having more women editors. You think there will be virtually no change. So why do care one way or another whether or not more women are recruited? As the OP asked: Why are you here? Lightbreather (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Because a broader mix of editors means a broader mix of experience and opinion, why else? As for women, I really couldn't care less whether or not more women are recruited. I'm here because I think that too many of you have got your heads up your proverbial arses, attacking windmills that are simply mirages. Eric Corbett 22:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Ignoring the personal attack, your arguments don't add up. You say the percentage of women editors on Wikipedia has no effect on its content. But you also say you want a broader mix of editors (more women would make a broader mix) because they bring "a broader mix of experience and opinion" - which implies they would improve the project's content. (You also say "they tend to be more thorough," which would also be an improvement.) But you couldn't care less whether or not more women are recruited. So you just want the increase to happen "naturally," considering that the present editing environment is healthy and welcoming to a broad mix of people. And you believe those (many women) who have different experiences and opinions on the matter than your own have their heads up their asses and are tilting at windmills. Dude, if this ever was true - and I doubt it - you and your compadres have become some very real windmills. If you don't mean to be, then please knock it off. Lightbreather (talk) 23:41, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'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)

In addition to more articles of interest to women, there would be more representation of women's POV on certain topics. Granted, not all women think the same way on all topics (just as men don't), but there are some topics where there is definitely a significant difference between how men and women interpret such things - about what they think is notable, or has weight, and so on. Lightbreather (talk) 22:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Eric for responding. Privilege is a hard thing to get, especially when you benefit from it (and you don't want to be). Here's a good article about (an article about) privilege to help you get your head around it. As for your second question, I can't tell you how it would be different, or what would look different. But I don't think we should just fix the gender gap for the good of the content of an encyclopedia, I think we should fix it for the good of the people who want to be part of making a good encyclopedia. Happy to talk more here or on my talk page if you want Eric.Thebrycepeake (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm obviously not here to make friends, I leave that kind of stuff to Facebook. But I'd really, really, like to know how WP's content would be improved if the supposed gender gap was addressed, given that many (most) editors don't reveal their gender. Eric Corbett 20:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

All editors have biases. Some are able to edit for NPOV despite their biases, some are not. In cases where not all parties are able to edit neutrally, this is balanced by having editors on differing sides of a topic working together. I will say this and move on, since it is a subject from which I am currently topic banned. One WP area that would be improved for this very reason? Gun violence and gun control related articles. The majority of owners are men, and the majority opposed to their control are men, and the majority of WP editors on this subject are men. This bias is clear when reading WP articles on the subject. Lightbreather (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm a man, and and I find the issue of gun control in the USA to be incomprehensible. I imagine that the majority of those males you're talking about live in Backwoods, Backwood County, but I don't. Eric Corbett 21:43, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

User:Eric Corbett, see this paper, specifically the section "H2b F-Coverage-Worse", which starts on page 5. The authors performed two different analyses, one generic and one specific to a particular example of a Wikipedia topic area. The first one found that topics that were predominantly of 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)

Eric, it's not about coming here to make friends - maybe you do, maybe you don't. It's about coming here to collaborate with people instead of just tear them down, over and over again. You said above (below now) that you are all for rational ways of getting more women editors, because they are better at paying attention to detail than men. And then you say that there would be no difference with more women editors. And then you go about insulting people who say there would be a difference. Not only does it come off as inconsistent and unintellegent (to me), but I experience as an example of the disruption that people complain about. And, I don't think it makes Wikipedia any better. Maybe you should re-read the entry I wrote above, and figure out why and how you're contributing here. Thebrycepeake (talk) 21:18, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Eric, I might be willing to answer your questions, if you share your answers first. Lightbreather (talk) 20:19, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

My answers to what? I thought my position was pretty clear. Eric Corbett 20:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

To your questions: Assuming the claimed 16% of female editors is somewhere in the right ballpark, what effect has that had on WP's content? Or what would be different if it was 50%? Lightbreather (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Nothing would be different. Eric Corbett 20:53, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

[Insert: Yes, Eric. One thing would have been different. If 1/3 of editors and 1/2 of admins were women, your 2011 block for incivility] which has been a point of much discussion at ANI today, last month, and elsewhere the last month would have stuck; and if you kept it up you'd have been site banned by now. Getting more women and academics and older people and serious editors in here is half the job; keeping them means dealing with the problem that drives so many away - incivility, be it stupid and ignorant or bloated with intellectual superiority, and everything in between. Unless of course you learned self-control, in which case you'd be happily editing away like everyone else. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:51, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

So women are by default more civil than men? That's a petty bold statement. Do you have any proof, other than conjecture that this is true?Two kinds of pork (talk) 02:01, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Of course she doesn't, because there is none. Eric Corbett 02:05, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. I'm not interested in Rich's item 1 which is a hypothetical thought experiment, but I am interested in item 2, which is a goal worth pursuing. The mere existence of more editors means we will have more hands on deck to improve existing articles many of which are in abyssal shape. Some research suggests that articles of interest to women tend to be shorter, so that gap, if it exists might be closed.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:09, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I am also more interested in item 2. But item 1 should also be in out minds, because there are suggestions that changing the culture of Wikipedia is required to preferentially attract more female editors. There are also suggestions that these changes will drive away males (maybe just a few, maybe many). Personally I find the first suggestion interesting, but lacking evidence, and the second extremely unlikely but also not proven either way. (Again the emotions research mentioned above provide tangential support to both statements.) So assuming one had a "culture slider" control labelled "male friendly" on one end and "female friendly" on the other, it is not absurd to imagine that the community, or the WMF would operate the slider until equal numbers of male and female editors were present even if that meant a net loss of editors let alone the same number.

Of course there is also an "option 3", where we recruit as many female editors as we currently have male editors, and in the process recruit proportionately or disproportionately more male editors.

All the best: 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)

I'll try to look it/them out. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:23, 5 September 2014 (UTC).

Therefore we might reasonably expect the answer to Q1 to be, with respect to coverage, The coverage of male subjects would decrease (comapred with female subjects), the coverage of female subjects would increase, the coverage of neutral subject would decrease very slightly.

Umm, I don't think anyone is suggesting that 50/50 be achieved by killing male editors and replacing them with female editors. So it would result in an increase in topics that receive less coverage on account of Q1, not necessarily the second. Thebrycepeake (talk) 21:23, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

See my comment to SPHILBRICK above. Also remember we are loosing editors, so focussing out attention on recruiting specifically female editors may result in faster (total) wastage of male editors. All the best: 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)
    • Rather few editors actually create content, and hardly any of them decent content. But again, what are these topics that only women would be interested in? Eric Corbett 21:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Anne: I think there probably are more women than current numbers, though they may not edit as frequently. The interesting thing is that in Critical mass (sociodynamics) (an article that needs a lot of work) you need something like 15 or 20% of people to agree/sympathize to make change happen. Whatever the number, if we could get even half that number to identify openly here as women, that in itself would make a big change. As some of us using our real names can testify, you can do it and not get killed. So using a handle and the little female symbol in your user name to make it clear might be one way to make that critical mass number be reached. like: User:BigBadBird☥ Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:05, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

It's also an open secret that there are men here posting as women. If someone wants to use the female pronoun, I don't have any problem with that, but when you get into gender statistics, that can become a little more controversial. —Neotarf (talk) 22:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Really? Are there perhaps also women posting as men? Or is that simply inconceivable? Eric Corbett 22:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

None that I know of, although, (pardon my saying so) but I have heard some private speculation about her ladyship, Catherine de Burgh, not that I believe it, of course. —Neotarf (talk) 00:45, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

With all due respect you clearly don't know very much, so ... Eric Corbett 02:15, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

How does anyone know how frequently women edit if nobody knows who they are? I rather like the idea of not identifying as male or female. I think editors should be judged on what they produce not their gender. I don't want any little symbols after my name. What will happen when this critical number is reached? Will editors suddenly start writing "articles of interest to women"? Perhaps women who don't identify are quite happy with things as they are. Who knows? I don't, but I do think all this speculation is pointless. J3Mrs (talk) 22:28, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I see gender gap issues the most on the drama boards such as AfD, with a tendency to view biography topics involving women as more trivial and those involving men less so. (the classic "Scottish footballers" or "Sri Lankan cricketeers" criteria for notability, versus, say women actors or writers or college professors). The corollary, of course, is also the disproportionate extent in the creation of said articles on each of the above topics. A minor athlete in a major league in 1935 will get an article. We recently had to deal with an AfD on a woman actor who was "only a supporting actress" in several films by major studios. Seems roughly equivalent to me, but not to the deletionist crowd. Montanabw^(talk) 22:37, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

AfD's are a big area and I had to quit the Feminist alert for a while cause it was taking up too much time. So more women editors would help in that regard.

For women like me stuck with female names because we didn't know better than to use an anonymous gender neutral handle, it would be great to see more evidence of women. I'd basically given up on trying to figure it out and started calling all editors "he" until there was some clear sign they were women.

But it's mostly about building a critical mass of editors and administrators who will just say no to disruptive bullying behavior and thus support more collaborative editing. And this isn't just my idea, see this thread on [Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Editor_Retention/Archive_16#Translating_effective_methods_of_dealing_with_a_culture_of_bullying_from_other_organisations ending bullying] from EditorRetention Wikiproject.

Getting women here in the first place is difficult. Keeping them here if they work on political/economic articles where there are a lot of aggressive guys is something else. I work on those, so I've seen a lot of it. Those who work in calmer waters (and I do work in those types of articles happily from time to time) may not see the issue quite the same way. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:57, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

An idea: get more women to goto projects where it has been shown there is a majority interest

I am mainly over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga, we have a sailor moon task force for example. Another one are My Little Pony related articles or football related articles where half of it's fanbase is female. This I my idea, promote the projects that females show interest in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:51, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Great. Every little bit helps. And hopefully as some of the younger women mature, go to college, and get into the heavier duty issues of economics/politics/history/science, etc. they'll become kick ass editors on those topics. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 21:55, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Its a start, using social media sites such as facebook and twitter would also be beneficial to get new editors in. As for older editors facebook would be better for that as new studies show that most middle aged women and men use the site as opposed to teens and college students. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh god, not My Little Pony! There is a Brony problem over there, vandal central! I'm sorry Carol, I think this person is trying to troll the forum too. (Anyone who says "females" - really?) and football-related articles having "half its fanbase" Naah. We're being trolled. Montanabw^(talk) 22:22, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF please, here is a reference for the football fact [9]. As for bronies yeah there are going to be vandals out there just as much as there could possibly be some good editors out there, its an easy fix, block the vandals keep the good editors around =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Women have as widely varied interests as men do. There is no need to pigeonhole a particular editor or try to guess what will interest her. If you want to encourage new women editors to stay around and be productive, the same things work as do for men editors: Greet them, invite them to the WP:Teahouse, offer to help, ask them what they are interested in and then point out the appropriate WikiProjects. —Anne Delong (talk) 22:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Im not talking about single editors though, I am talking about getting female editors to join projects based on what they like to do. it has been shown that women like certain things more than guys do and other things that normally guys would think "That's crazy" women have the same interest in as men. Seeing we are focusing on getting more female editors to Wikipedia I think we should work off what we have, this is what social websites use to draw new users in, the stats. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:52, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As for the teahouse that approach works sometimes, I joined Wikipedia though wanting to find out something on something I liked, when I started editing I just started editing, the draw was an interest I saw. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:56, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

I only started editing because someone had created an article about me and separately about the peace group I was in plus I did one about a friend. A few years later one of the two workshops I did was for a group with a special interest and 12 people showed. If I'd been more experienced and more on top of infrastructure, I might have kept some of them editing. Of course finding areas that both are a special interest with lots of fans AND have a large pool of articles can be difficult. So we do have to emphasize the broader approach; but when we find pockets of potential editors among some relevant fan base we certainly should go for it. Thanks for your work. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 23:07, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Welcome =). Then we should ask ourselves "Why did I join Wikipedia?" if you can answer that then it might inspire some ideas. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:14, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps. But how likely would you think the answer to be that "I thought there were were too few female editors on Wikipedia"? Eric Corbett 23:32, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Guys can be asked too in this case, or older female users such as User:Alison, it will get an idea on why people join here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Are you now suggesting that the reasons male and female editors join are different? I thought we were all here to build an encyclopedia? Eric Corbett 00:38, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

No, im saying that I am sure guys join Wikipedia for many of the same reasons females do so it would be beneficial to ask guys too. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:54, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

If you're so interested in the question, Eric, why don't you read some of the studies that have been done on it. —Neotarf (talk) 01:04, 5 September 2014 (UTC

I have, but they're just one-off studies. As I'm sure you'll be aware, as the experienced editor that you are, that only review articles are appropriate to draw any conclusions from. Do you have any links to such review articles? Eric Corbett 01:58, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Why don't you read some of the previous threads. Or ask the project members, if there are any left you haven't alienated. This stuff has already been discussed. —Neotarf (talk) 02:12, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Uh. Way to stereotype. The first post just basically assumes that any female editor interested in Anime is going to only be interested in Sailor Moon or that of course women will be more interested in little ponies or something like that. I think it's a better idea to not assume that women will automatically want to edit only a few topics - a surprise, but many women have quite varied interests. Are they supposed to only edit soap operas, fashion topics and food? Follow Anne Delong's advice ... and quit trying to figure out places to pigeonhole women editors. Ealdgyth - Talk 00:59, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Again... WP:AGF I made my very first edit here and already got slammed by three editors and you wonder why people with new ideas are reluctant to edit here? Im thinking larger picture here, of course all women don't like certain things just as much as guys don't all like manly things that is not my point at all and im not trying to stereotype anything but to go by what draws people in the most, it has been proven though that a majority of women for example like to clothes shop. We are trying to find more female editors remember? If we can lure some to the projects we have here on Wikipedia over time the gap will be filled more. Thank you btw Carolmooredc, for hearing me out on this. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:13, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Some people think "pigeon hole", I think entry points to a long and winding road with many many branches as one follows one interests as one learns and grows and develops new interests. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

I knew an editor here left now that used to only be here because she loved to edit anime and manga related articles, not everyone here has to edit everything or join 10 different wikiprojects, sticking with what you like to edit I feel is a draw for people here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:18, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Women.com

Women.com, a new invite-only website. People are asked to sign in via Facebook, or request an invitation on Twitter. Article here. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:40, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Done! Lightbreather (talk) 23:48, 4 September 2014 (UTC)