|
|
|
WP Gang Banging : Why Such Negative Connotations For Women?, The Never-Ending Story : No Date Tonight |
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Sun 30th January 2011, 9:06pm) Wikipedia tries to lessen gender gap on siteSt. Louis Post-DispatchIn 10 short years, Wikipedia has accomplished some remarkable goals. More than 3.5 million articles in English? Done. More than 250 different languages? ...and more »View the article Here comes the bullshit, boys and .... girls. QUOTE Sue Gardner, the executive director of the foundation, has set a goal to raise the share of women contributors to 25 percent by 2015, but she is running up against the traditions of the computer world and an obsessive fact-loving realm that is male-dominated and not friendly to women.
Her effort is not diversity for diversity’s sake, she says.
“This is about wanting to ensure that the encyclopedia is as good as it could be,†Gardner said in interview Thursday. “The difference between Wikipedia and other editorially created products is that Wikipedians are not professionals, they are only asked to bring what they know.â€
“Everyone brings their crumb of information to the table,†she said. “If they are not at the table, we don’t benefit from their crumb.â€
With so many subjects represented — most everything has an article on Wikipedia — the gender disparity often shows up in terms of emphasis. A topic generally restricted to teenage girls, like friendship bracelets, can seem short at four paragraphs when compared with lengthy articles on something boys might favor, like toy soldiers or baseball cards, whose voluminous entry includes a detailed chronological history of the subject.
Even the most famous fashion designers — Manolo Blahnik or Jimmy Choo — get but a handful of paragraphs. And consider the disparity between two popular series on HBO: The entry on “Sex and the City†includes only a brief summary of every episode, sometimes two or three sentences; The one on “The Sopranos†includes lengthy, detailed articles on each episode.
Is a category with five Mexican feminist writers impressive, or embarrassing when compared with the 45 articles on characters in “The Simpsons�
(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) Whereas, in the chemistry and math articles, the womyns are in there slugging it out 50:50. Not. Yeah, let's try to compare one pop culture idea to another. And then let's try for some misdirection at the end. QUOTE Gardner, citing an example that resonates with her personally, pointed to the Wikipedia entry for one of her favorite authors, Pat Barker, which was a mere three paragraphs when she came across it. Barker is an acclaimed writer of psychologically nuanced novels, many set during World War I. She is 67 and lives in England.
By contrast, Niko Bellic had an article about five times as long as Barker’s at the time. It’s a question of demographics: Bellic is a character in the video game Grand Theft Auto IV; he is 30 and a former soldier. The public is increasingly going to Wikipedia as a research source: According to a recent Pew survey, the percentage of all American adults who use the site to look for information increased to 42 percent in May 2010, from 25 percent in February 2007. This translates to 53 percent of adults who regularly use the Internet.
There we go. Gardner manages to name the one article on Wikipedia-- the ONLY article--- that she personally has substantially improved in her 4 years of editing. At 2 edits/week, it's the only one she's had enough edits to improve. QUOTE Jane Margolis, co-author of a book on sexism in computer science, “Unlocking the Clubhouse,†argues that Wikipedia is experiencing the same problems of the offline world, where women are less willing to assert their opinions in public. “In almost every space, who are the authorities, the politicians, writers for op-ed pages?†said Margolis, a senior researcher at the Institute for Democracy, Education and Access at the University of California, Los Angeles.
According to the OpEd Project, an organization based in New York that monitors the gender breakdown of contributors to “public thought-leadership forums,†a participation rate of roughly 85-to-15 percent, men to women, is common — whether members of Congress, or writers on The New York Times and Washington Post Op-Ed pages.
It would seem to be an irony that Wikipedia, where the amateur contributor is celebrated, is experiencing the same problem as forums that require expertise. But Catherine Orenstein, the founder and director of the OpEd Project, said many women lack the confidence to put forth their views. “When you are a minority voice, you begin to doubt your own competencies,†she said.
She said her group has persuaded women to express themselves by urging them to shift the focus “away from oneself — ‘do I know enough, am I bragging?’ — and turn the focus outward, thinking about the value of your knowledge.â€
Margolis said she was an advocate of recruiting women as a group to fields or forums where they are under-represented. That way, a solitary woman does not face the burden alone. But Ms. Margolis: on the internet, nobody knows what sex you are, unless you tell them. And here you are, telling us that anonymous women are intimidated into not participating on WP. Riiiight. Has it not occured to you that the atmosphere of WP is toxic to women, and that this is true even if they can wear a mask and not be known as female? Hmmm? And now for the lawyerly piece of misdirection. In a style that Jimbo and Godwin would be proud of, Gardner uses her single WP accomplishment to imply and suggest (without actually claiming it) that she's fighting the good fight, all alone, making substantial improvements all by her lonesome XX self: QUOTE Gardner said that for now she is trying to use subtle persuasion and outreach through her foundation to welcome all newcomers to Wikipedia, rather than advocate for women-specific remedies like recruitment or quotas. “Gender is a huge hot-button issue for lots of people who feel strongly about it,†she said. “I am not interested in triggering those strong feelings.â€
Kat Walsh, a policy analyst and longtime Wikipedia contributor who was elected to the Wikimedia board, agreed that indirect initiatives would cause less unease in the Wikipedia community than more overt efforts.But she acknowledged the hurdles: “The big problem is that the current Wikipedia community is what came about by letting things develop naturally — trying to influence it in another direction is no longer the easiest path, and requires conscious effort to change.â€
Sometimes, conscious effort works. After seeing the short entry on Barker, Gardner added a substantial amount of background. During the same time, Niko Bellic’s page has grown by only a few sentences.
Arhhhhhhggggg!!! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/pinch.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/furious.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tearinghairout.gif) Gardner, you're a goddamned deceptive corporate lackie marshmellow. If you think you can really change the world one lie at a time, then you and your fellow "feminists" still have a LOT of lessons to go. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif)
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 31st January 2011, 4:52am) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 31st January 2011, 1:35am) Gardner, you're a goddamned deceptive corporate lackie marshmellow. If you think you can really change the world one lie at a time, then you and your fellow "feminists" still have a LOT of lessons to go.
Gee, Milton, why don't you try telling people who don't already know? Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Because (unlike you this AM) I had no idea when I wrote that, that this news story was going to get copied endlessly. I'll see what I can do in various commentary sections. But as we both know, journalists are overworked/lazy (I guess you have to be a journalist to figure out which it REALLY is). But their environment and job just about guarantees they'll take ANY prepackaged BS which is sold in the form of press release or puff interview. The chance that any given journalist will go digging like Woodward and Bernstein to see how much Gardner really DOES write in WP, is just about nil in 2011. The story isn't that big and newspapers aren't what they were. So Sue can and will trot out the ONE AND ONLY article she's improved in 4 years, Potemkin style, and let the ignorant weenie journalistsgallant warriors of the 4th estate do the rest of the misdirection and prevarication FOR her. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Mon 31st January 2011, 4:12pm) Today's Lady News: Wikipedia Is A DickipediaThe Frisky (blog)Less than 15 percent of users who edit Wikipedia's content are women, which means the encyclopedia's entries are likely presenting a gender-skewed version ...View the article (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) This newspaper for women (ostensibly) says Wikipedia is a "Dickipedia" and says: "Get on-line and start editing, ladies." And presumably this is what WP's interests would look like if that happened: The Frisky: "Love, Life, Stars, Style." http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-todays-lady-news-01311/The Good, The Bad & The Meh At The 2011 SAG Awards I’m A Feminist But I Think I Want To Date A More Traditional Dude 8 Ways To Meet Guys Offline 10 Sexual Practices We Were Totally Unaware Of Dior Haute Couture Brings The Glam To Spring/Summer 2011 Oscars James Franco The Frisky's 2011 Astro Guide Glee Polls: What Do You Think? Hotties news entertainment celebs parenting relationships sex guys style horoscopes money tv photos *One hundred mothers staged a “nurse-in†in a Montreal mall after a woman was kicked out of a children’s clothing store (a children’s clothing store!) for breastfeeding her five-month-old baby. *Chick-Fil-A in Pennsylvania donated sandwiches and brownies to a meeting of an anti-gay marriage group. *CNN’s new talk show host Piers Morgan defends himself for asking Condoleezza Rice why she’s a dried-up old spinster. (Okay, he didn’t use those words exactly.) *Woman Allegedly Mows Down Cousin After He Refuses Facebook Friend Request: (Today in “bitches be crazy!†news ...) Plus lots of articles about abortion and gay rights. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) The last making me seriously wonder what fraction of women on the net (when they do exist) are actually gay, so you guys are still out of luck. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) Any bets on whether "The Frisky" is actually owned by women? And edited in no small part by gay men? Teh good news about WP: When women take over WP, we're NOT going to have to trade article-after-article about Power Rangers, for new article-after-article about Frida Kahlo-- like Sue Gardner wants. Instead, we're going to get, well, things of interest to more average women. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) *Style by Jury: What Do You Think Of Anne Hathaway's Pattern-Mixing Marni Look? *Woman Claims Yogurt Sample Tasted Like Semen: Stop reading if you're still eating. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif)
|
|
|
|
Alison |
|
Skinny Cow!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806
|
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
Blah. "The Frisky" is just another of those shitty celeb blogs that Turner started years ago, trying to compete with TMZ and Perez Hilton. Last I heard, they were all considered only mildly successful. They're just stupid. If you want to complain about something, complain about TMZ--possibly the sleaziest, trashiest website in existence today. Examples abound. And PS: there still is a "Dickipedia".
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
And if all that wasn't repulsive enough...... here are the consummate nerds of Metafilter, arguing about the NYT article. Best comments: QUOTE Maybe women have lives. posted by Segundus at 6:51 AM on January 31 [9 favorites] QUOTE I'm surprised that the reputation for general jackassery wikipedia editors have hasn't come up yet. My disinterest in editing wikipedia has more to do with my lack of interest in stepping into flame wars, having topics I think are important deleted, having my edits undone with snippy comments in talk, and so on than it does with my theoretical difficulty with using a wiki. posted by immlass at 7:05 AM on January 31 [17 favorites] QUOTE Women already do this stuff, but we tend to do it in our own communities. You name just about any single media property with any kind of fanbase, and I can direct you to the Wiki, the Lexicon, the archive, and at least 2 major communities for them, all built by women.
Just because we're not building those things on Wikipedia doesn't mean we're not capable or interested. We are, and we're achieving them with perfectly elegant coding, scripting, and other technology.
I've tried to edit on Wikipedia, but I find the "This is my troll bridge, you may not pass!" attitude obnoxious. I can add all kinds of things to male YA authors' pages with minimal cites and no one says a word.
Whereas, every time I try to add a female YA author, or contribute to their pages, I invariably end up with some obnoxious gatekeeper complaining that my cites from Publisher's Weekly and School Library Journal aren't NEARLY enough, and besides, this author isn't SIGNIFICANT enough to have an entry, who cares if she published three books? They're not NOTEWORTHY. Meanwhile, 1-Book Nobody Dude's Wikipedia page is 14 printable pages long.
So, I wish Sue Gardner luck, I really do. But I have enough parity stuff I have to fight about; fighting to post on Wikipedia doesn't even make the top 100. posted by headspace at 8:46 AM on January 31 [33 favorites] QUOTE My apologies then for misinterpreting your words, but we're talking about a gender imbalance in the Wikipedia editing community, so if by "general public" you mean men and women equally then the difficulty of the editing process can't be the cause.
Incorrect. It's simply reflecting the larger imbalance between the genders in technology enthusiasts... see the point made earlier about MIT comp sci students. Wikipedia is kept difficult to use and master for those who are not inclined to tackle steep technical and social learning curves - this includes almost everyone who isn't a computer hobbyist.
Consensus is not respected. Rules-lawyering and its attendant pecking-order macho male-aggressive bullshit is the order of the day. The environment is pretty hostile to newcomers and those who don't like long, protracted ego jousts to defend their "turf."
It's a culture designed to keep most women out. posted by Slap*Happy at 9:51 AM on January 31 [4 favorites] This post has been edited by EricBarbour:
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Fri 4th February 2011, 11:09am) What Makes Wikipedia Special?The AtlanticI've got a question about Wikipedia and the concern expressed in so many places that only 13 percent of its contributors are women: ...View the article QUOTE Like most people, there are some gender disparities that I find troubling, and others I don't much care about. I wonder how others decide when they care, because it seems to me that people care about Wikipedia, even though its general characteristics make it seem a lot like the things we don't normally care about. There aren't any barriers to entry blocking women who want to participate, there isn't an ugly history of discriminating against women, being a Wikipedia contributor isn't a high status position or a proving ground for other high status positions, the women foregoing participation aren't missing out on career opportunities or sacrificing future financial security, we aren't intuitively aware of the disparity, no one particularly complains that Wikipedia entries are biased against women in any way, a group of concerned volunteers could easily add articles on any subjects the mostly male club of contributors is missing...
(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) The writer has a point, no? The only thing he hasn't addressed, is that editing Wikipedia heavily is an education in and of itself, if you choose your subjects wisely. There's no better way to really learn a subject than having to "teach it." Writing about it cogently amounts to having to teach it. I have the feeling that most of the people writing about the benefits of editing WP (or lack thereof) have missed a large chunk of the reason behind requiring students to write "research papers," as a part of education. It isn't just to teach students how to write (though that's part of it). It also makes the student learn the subject, if they're not just copying somebody else's single essay. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Yeah, how's THAT for a novel thought?
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 4th February 2011, 2:32pm) Ah, Milton, still livin' der Traum … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) No, it's quite real. You can read Britannica, but not nearly as much will stay with you as if you concentrate hard enough to EDIT Britannica. I've probably learned as much from editing WP part time these last 4 years, as from a year of college. It's probably been approximately the same amount of my time (though distributed completely in otherwise recreational holes in my schedule), and cost me no more than the time (zero tuition). Some people learn by watching, some by listening, some by doing. Some by writing; guess what sort I am? Now, the opportunity-cost for this, was would I would have been doing otherwise. I could have been doing noble things like advancing human knowledge and writing papers and patents. The Ultimate Cat Litter Box has yet to be invented. I could be volunteering as a T.A. at the local community college (wanna REALLY learn Newton's Laws?) Or I could have been vegging out in front of my TV watching Lie to Me and Bones.. Or I could have spent it scuba diving in the South Pacific, or other travel or social interaction with real people at home or near it, doing exercise, or something else to improve my life. It's all very nebulous, but if WP is an MMORPG, I'm pretty sure WP has been better for me than any OTHER MMORPG. It certainly beats hell out of Farmville.
|
|
|
|
SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 4th February 2011, 7:06pm) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 4th February 2011, 2:32pm) Ah, Milton, still livin' der Traum … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) No, it's quite real. You can read Britannica, but not nearly as much will stay with you as if you concentrate hard enough to EDIT Britannica. I've probably learned as much from editing WP part time these last 4 years, as from a year of college. It's probably been approximately the same amount of my time (though distributed completely in otherwise recreational holes in my schedule), and cost me no more than the time (zero tuition). Some people learn by watching, some by listening, some by doing. Some by writing; guess what sort I am? Now, the opportunity-cost for this, was would I would have been doing otherwise. I could have been doing noble things like advancing human knowledge and writing papers and patents. The Ultimate Cat Litter Box has yet to be invented. I could be volunteering as a T.A. at the local community college (wanna REALLY learn Newton's Laws?) Or I could have been vegging out in front of my TV watching Lie to Me and Bones.. Or I could have spent it scuba diving in the South Pacific, or other travel or social interaction with real people at home or near it, doing exercise, or something else to improve my life. It's all very nebulous, but if WP is an MMORPG, I'm pretty sure WP has been better for me than any OTHER MMORPG. It certainly beats hell out of Farmville. I had pretty much the same outlook and same experience for a couple years, but then got sucked into the "high politics" of WMF and have had a hard time recapturing it since then.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 4th February 2011, 5:52pm) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 4th February 2011, 7:06pm) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 4th February 2011, 2:32pm) Ah, Milton, still livin' der Traum … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) No, it's quite real. You can read Britannica, but not nearly as much will stay with you as if you concentrate hard enough to EDIT Britannica. I've probably learned as much from editing WP part time these last 4 years, as from a year of college. It's probably been approximately the same amount of my time (though distributed completely in otherwise recreational holes in my schedule), and cost me no more than the time (zero tuition). Some people learn by watching, some by listening, some by doing. Some by writing; guess what sort I am? Now, the opportunity-cost for this, was would I would have been doing otherwise. I could have been doing noble things like advancing human knowledge and writing papers and patents. The Ultimate Cat Litter Box has yet to be invented. I could be volunteering as a T.A. at the local community college (wanna REALLY learn Newton's Laws?) Or I could have been vegging out in front of my TV watching Lie to Me and Bones.. Or I could have spent it scuba diving in the South Pacific, or other travel or social interaction with real people at home or near it, doing exercise, or something else to improve my life. It's all very nebulous, but if WP is an MMORPG, I'm pretty sure WP has been better for me than any OTHER MMORPG. It certainly beats hell out of Farmville. I had pretty much the same outlook and same experience for a couple years, but then got sucked into the "high politics" of WMF and have had a hard time recapturing it since then. Try ignoring administration. It's always a good thing to do, when you see that people are administrating (giving orders) relative to that which they know absolutely nothing about. Again it's the authority of expertise vs. the authority of naked force. Unless you have a gun pointed at your head, or are being paid outrageously, whenever you meet that kind of "authority of force" situation, you just refuse to help people apply force. Of course they'll always sucker you in with horror tales of how, if you don't do it, they'll be forced to let snotnosed kids do it. But the truth is that they don't give a damn about the job except as it benefits them personally, and they're doing to allow kids to do some of it anyway, just as they did (and do) in Iraq. Don't be Pat Tillman. You don't have to go. It's not your patriotic duty. There is a difference between administering WP and writing for it, which somehow I cannot get across on WR. The process is not the content. The idiots in charge are not the same thing as the encyclopedia content that is produced. It's quite possible to contribute to one with out enabling the other (at least very much). It's sort of like donating to a veteran's charity while opposing a war.
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 4th February 2011, 9:19pm) QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 4th February 2011, 5:52pm) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 4th February 2011, 7:06pm) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 4th February 2011, 2:32pm) Ah, Milton, still livin' der Traum … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) No, it's quite real. You can read Britannica, but not nearly as much will stay with you as if you concentrate hard enough to EDIT Britannica. I've probably learned as much from editing WP part time these last 4 years, as from a year of college. It's probably been approximately the same amount of my time (though distributed completely in otherwise recreational holes in my schedule), and cost me no more than the time (zero tuition). Some people learn by watching, some by listening, some by doing. Some by writing; guess what sort I am? Now, the opportunity-cost for this, was would I would have been doing otherwise. I could have been doing noble things like advancing human knowledge and writing papers and patents. The Ultimate Cat Litter Box™ has yet to be invented. I could be volunteering as a T.A. at the local community college (wanna REALLY learn Newton's Laws?) Or I could have been vegging out in front of my TV watching Lie to Me and Bones. Or I could have spent it scuba diving in the South Pacific, or other travel or social interaction with real people at home or near it, doing exercise, or something else to improve my life. It's all very nebulous, but if WP is an MMORPG, I'm pretty sure WP has been better for me than any OTHER MMORPG. It certainly beats hell out of Farmville. I had pretty much the same outlook and same experience for a couple years, but then got sucked into the "high politics" of WMF and have had a hard time recapturing it since then. Try ignoring administration. It's always a good thing to do, when you see that people are administrating (giving orders) relative to that which they know absolutely nothing about. Again it's the authority of expertise vs. the authority of naked force. Unless you have a gun pointed at your head, or are being paid outrageously, whenever you meet that kind of "authority of force" situation, you just refuse to help people apply force. Of course they'll always sucker you in with horror tales of how, if you don't do it, they'll be forced to let snotnosed kids do it. But the truth is that they don't give a damn about the job except as it benefits them personally, and they're doing to allow kids to do some of it anyway, just as they did (and do) in Iraq. Don't be Pat Tillman. You don't have to go. It's not your patriotic duty. There is a difference between administering WP and writing for it, which somehow I cannot get across on WR. The process is not the content. The idiots in charge are not the same thing as the encyclopedia content that is produced. It's quite possible to contribute to one with out enabling the other (at least very much). It's sort of like donating to a veteran's charity while opposing a war. Pay no attention to the boys in the brown shirts … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif)
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Sun 6th February 2011, 2:15pm) QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Sun 6th February 2011, 2:14pm) Wikipedia : This is a Man's WorldIndependentWikipedia : it's comprehensive, democratic … and dominated by blokes. Does this bias matter? Not if your interests are rolling stock, Black Ops, and loo roll … I'm getting a 404 error.....okay, which of you nerds got it deleted? It appears t be a genuine problem with the Independent, not our link. When I used their own search function to find the It's a Man's World article, it was there, but I couldn't read it. Same 404 error.
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Sun 6th February 2011, 4:31pm) It appears t be a genuine problem with the Independent, not our link. When I used their own search function to find the It's a Man's World article, it was there, but I couldn't read it. Same 404 error.
QUOTE Wikipedia : This is a Man's World - Features, Gadgets & Tech Not if your interests are rolling stock, Black Ops and loo roll, says Michael Bywater. Monday, 7 February 2011.
Waddaya expect from a guy named “Bywater†… But it does appear that loo roll — by any other word — is a popular meme on both sides of the Big Loo. Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
|
|
|
|
HRIP7 |
|
Senior Member
Group: Regulars
Posts: 483
Joined:
Member No.: 17,020
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Kwork @ Thu 10th February 2011, 1:18pm) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Sat 5th February 2011, 1:08am) Being an old-fangled Peirce-James-Dewey pragmatist, I strongly believe in a life of learning by doing.
And what I see the Common 87% Man doing and learning in Wikiputia is more than anything else an unexamined life of moral and intellectual cowardice.
Whether it's by nature or by accident I don't really care, but I can hardly help but rejoice that any fraction of humanity is spared that manner of learning by doing.
Jon Awbrey
If its possible, you should put this up some of this over the entrance to the WR Meta Forum. It sums up a lot of important things with very few words. Yeah, I got all e-couraged and x-cited for a moment there, because even Milton started e-spousing that “learning by doing†line, even if he seemed to think it was some kind of new-fangled notion, but that's okay, because the next think-to-do after that is to reflect on what yer actually doing, to realize that it's what yer really learning, and what yer really teaching others to e-mulate. But he just as wikly scurried back under the cover of “Content Is All†(CIA), keep yer gnosis to the grimestone, and don't worry yer pretty little shaven head over the sound of tinkling glass and the smell of death all around you. Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 10th February 2011, 12:04pm) Yeah, I got all e-couraged and x-cited for a moment there, because even Milton started e-spousing that “learning by doing†line, even if he seemed to think it was some kind of new-fangled notion, but that's okay, because the next think-to-do after that is to reflect on what yer actually doing, to realize that it's what yer really learning, and what yer really teaching others to e-mulate. But he just as wikly scurried back under the cover of “Content Is All†(CIA), keep yer gnosis to the grimestone, and don't worry yer pretty little shaven head over the sound of tinkling glass and the smell of death all around you. Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) It's perfectly fine to avoid learning by doing, but instead learn vicariously, when it comes to murder and mayhem. We try to teach with minimal damage. However, WP is not murder and mayhem. There are no actual shaven heads or actual killings there. All there are, are a bunch of conniving bastards who are out of control socially. They can't actually hurt you, as they are digital. So-- it's exactly the kind of thing you should learn by direct experience, as you wouldn't really believe it any other way, and direct experience isn't going to get you dead, or anybody else dead. And learning by direct experience is pretty hard to avoid, if you edit WP as an ordinary non-admin, and you happen to be a subject-matter-expert in the field in which you edit. Which is doubtless why Gardner avoids editing, and Jimbo never edits under a nom-de-plume (we saw what happened to his editing with Mzoli's). They're all avoiding learning-by-doing, like mad, because it would destroy the world-view and the lie they depend on. Because nobody can edit WP much as an expert, with no special protection, without learning viscerally that there's something very wrong with the place. As for you, Jon-- you hypocrite-- you learned-by-doing YOURSELF. But NOW, you want people to just listen to the wisdom of Jon, and not do that. You do NOT want to have people figure out for themselves what the problems are. And when they do, all you do is laugh at them for being chronologically behind YOU. Like that really helps. Your problem, Jon, is that you're a "learn by doing" SNOB.
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Thu 10th February 2011, 2:19pm) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 10th February 2011, 12:04pm) Yeah, I got all e-couraged and x-cited for a moment there, because even Milton started e-spousing that “learning by doing†line, even if he seemed to think it was some kind of new-fangled notion, but that's okay, because the next think-to-do after that is to reflect on what yer actually doing, to realize that it's what yer really learning, and what yer really teaching others to e-mulate. But he just as wikly scurried back under the cover of “Content Is All†(CIA), keep yer gnosis to the grimestone, and don't worry yer pretty little shaven head over the sound of tinkling glass and the smell of death all around you. Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) It's perfectly fine to avoid learning by doing, but instead learn vicariously, when it comes to murder and mayhem. We try to teach with minimal damage. However, WP is not murder and mayhem. There are no actual shaven heads or actual killings there. All there are, are a bunch of conniving bastards who are out of control socially. They can't actually hurt you, as they are digital. So — it's exactly the kind of thing you should learn by direct experience, as you wouldn't really believe it any other way, and direct experience isn't going to get you dead, or anybody else dead. And learning by direct experience is pretty hard to avoid, if you edit WP as an ordinary non-admin, and you happen to be a subject-matter-expert in the field in which you edit. Which is doubtless why Gardner avoids editing, and Jimbo never edits under a nom-de-plume (we saw what happened to his editing with Mzoli's). They're all avoiding learning-by-doing, like mad, because it would destroy the world-view and the lie they depend on. Because nobody can edit WP much as an expert, with no special protection, without learning viscerally that there's something very wrong with the place. As for you, Jon — you hypocrite — you learned-by-doing YOURSELF. But NOW, you want people to just listen to the wisdom of Jon, and not do that. You do NOT want to have people figure out for themselves what the problems are. And when they do, all you do is laugh at them for being chronologically behind YOU. Like that really helps. Your problem, Jon, is that you're a "learn by doing" SNOB. UhOh, sounds like I stepped on somebuddy's surplice. That's okay, Milton, one day you'll accidentally do something spineful enough to get permabanned — the sine qua non of genu-whine e-lightenment about Wikipedia — and then you can join the rest of us bony-fried e-habitants of Wiki-Paradise Lost. Let us know if there's anything we can do to Hasten the Day — Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 10th February 2011, 4:52pm) UhOh, sounds like I stepped on somebuddy's surplice. That's okay, Milton, one day you'll accidentally do something spineful enough to get permabanned — the sine qua non of genu-whine e-lightenment about Wikipedia — and then you can join the rest of us bony-fried e-habitants of Wiki-Paradise Lost. Let us know if there's anything we can do to Hasten the Day — Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Oh, that day may come. One of these days I'll may not be able to control my anger at some fuckwit, and they'll find an excuse to ban me, especially knowing very well who I am HERE and who I am THERE. The problem is this: I don't really have anything to lose THERE, except my username, which doesn't count, as I have no powerz, and it's already under a secret cloud. So, it will be a favor in some ways. I don't give a shit about administration. I've already learned that nobody is interested in my ideas for reform. So, WTF cares? The only reason I keep the username I was "born" with on WP, is that it carries just a little bit of reputation in some fields where I edit. But not enough to be important. Such things are transient, and on WP, they don't really count that much. If I get the ban, I'll rotate my IP and probably go back as somebody else (I'm thinking of user:Tetrass). I have a broad enough range of interests that nobody will ever know, and if they suspect, there won't be anything they can do. My editing on WP won't change much. My writing here won't change much. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) What's more, they (by THEY I mean the powerz that be on WP) have already have figured all that out. Which is possibly why they haven't been very interested in getting my classic username blocked. When I edit WP NOW as the person who was outed as Milton Roe in the Poetguy affair, at least they can still watch what I'm doing, if they're at all interested (good luck sucking down that basic physics, you WikiPricks (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) ). But once they ban me under my original and longstanding username, they understand that they can't even do THAT. I'll simply shift to editing the history of ancient Rome or something else (you figure it out from my posting history on WR and you MIGHT be right. Or not). But on WP, that means I'm gone without a ripple. Allow me to point out that it makes almost no difference to ME what username I edit WP under, and that fact makes me completely free. Free in a way that Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner and most of the toxic and well-known admins on WP, cannot begin to fathom.
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Fri 11th February 2011, 4:37am) A Slate writer had a few things to say about the Times article. The horror — a female writer criticizing feminists! I'm guessing you don't know many feminists. And the %-age of feminine byliners and pseudonymphs falling for wiki-φeminist Sue Gardner's line only goes to show just how few real feminists there are on the Interwebs. Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif)
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 11th February 2011, 1:36am) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Thu 10th February 2011, 4:52pm) UhOh, sounds like I stepped on somebuddy's surplice. That's okay, Milton, one day you'll accidentally do something spineful enough to get permabanned — the sine qua non of genu-whine e-lightenment about Wikipedia — and then you can join the rest of us bony-fried e-habitants of Wiki-Paradise Lost. Let us know if there's anything we can do to Hasten the Day — Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Allow me to point out that it makes almost no difference to ME what username I edit WP under, and that fact makes me completely free. Free in a way that Jimmy Wales and Sue Gardner and most of the toxic and well-known admins on WP, cannot begin to fathom. Sure, sure, but I have faith in you, Milton. I know you don't think you have any integrity — and maybe you know yourself better than I — but I do know that even the tinniest bastard seed of a whole soul will eventually shine through the wiki-pettifugging bushels of deceit, and then, and then, they'll burn that sock, and another, and another, until finally you attain your wiki-petechia, the never-healing wound that heals the soul. Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 11th February 2011, 8:10am) Sure, sure, but I have faith in you, Milton. I know you don't think you have any integrity — and maybe you know yourself better than I — but I do know that even the tinniest bastard seed of a whole soul will eventually shine through the wiki-pettifugging bushels of deceit, and then, and then, they'll burn that sock, and another, and another, until finally you attain your wiki-petechia, the never-healing wound that heals the soul. Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Why WP:NOT "Я" UsMake thee more stinky sockers, O my soul,       Leave thy first username!       Let each new ID, stranger in the game, Shut thee out of WP with a block more lame,       Till thou at length art gone, Leaving thine contrib turds on Wiki's weedy lawn! — Obesity Milton Holmes
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Sun 6th February 2011, 2:14pm) Wikipedia : This is a Man's WorldIndependentWikipedia : it's comprehensive, democratic … and dominated by blokes. Does this bias matter? Not if your interests are rolling stock, Black Ops, and loo roll … Looking back, this is still the funniest and truest article of the whole shebang. QUOTE I'm guessing the dame-o-graphics are comparable to the percentage of women in online games and street gangs, those being the closest approximations to Wikipediot Culture in the Real World™. But no one seems to be mounting campaigns to up the numbers of women gamers and gang bangers — well, you know, except for the Døøds who are into that. — Jonny Cache • 15 Feb 2011 (9:04 pm)
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
|
|
|
|
Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Tue 1st February 2011, 9:34pm) Does Wikipedia eat every female contributor's edits every time she writes them?Helen Smith • Men's News DailyThere’s a reason women don’t generally contribute to Wikipedia, and it has little to do with sexism, “cultureâ€, or lack of rules. The reason is, simply, that they don’t care. That’s right, it may be amazing to some people, but the overwhelming majority of women simply couldn’t care less about an online encyclopedia. QUOTE Update. There are now several threads at The Wikipedia Review on this and related topics: 1. Wikipedia Women Facebook Group — http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=330522. WMF GenderGap Discussion Forum — http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=330403. Concern About Porn On Wikipedia — http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=330214. Media Coverage Around The World — http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=32780— Jonny Cache • 18 Feb 2011 (7:36 PM)
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Sun 7th August 2011, 4:01pm) Wikipedia seeks women to balance its 'geeky' editorsThe IndependentWikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has launched a recruitment drive for women because its team of "26-year-old geeky, male" contributors lack the expertise to edit some of its pages. While the internet encyclopedia is "very strong" in some areas, such as science and technology, he said, its coverage of other issues was suffering because of a lack of diversity within its community of editors. "The main thing is to bring in people of all different backgrounds. If you do that, you increase the knowledge base of the site, which can only be a good thing. At the moment, we are relatively poor in a few areas; for example, biographies of famous women through history and issues surrounding early childcare." and more »View the article Okay, Jimbo's lips are moving, so it's time to check. Check article on teething. Article with 123 references on breastfeeding with pictures. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif) Cute. Uh oh, trouble in paradise. Long article with 123 references on baby colic BUT also a tag: "This article's tone or style may not reflect the formal tone used on Wikipedia. " (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) On the TALK page: QUOTE(WP TALK for Baby Colic) == Unencyclopedic Language ==
"Tooting"? "Pooping"? What cutesy site for mothers was this text cut'n'pasted from? [[Special:Contributions/218.191.194.125|218.191.194.125]] ([[User talk:218.191.194.125|talk]]) 15:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I also found the abbreviation "BM" rather twee. Does this mean bowel movement? It's all rather cryptic! [[User:Ioliver|Ian]] ([[User talk:Ioliver|talk]]) 18:25, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
== Tone ==
"...your baby..." and "All of us...." Please change this section to use neutral, encyclopedic tone, not the tone of literature directed to calm parents, useful as that may be in another context. --IP
(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) What happens when the widdle new mudders with the widdle tooters and poopers attempt to edit Der Mighty Wiki? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) NEUTRAL TONE. And if you can't stay neutral, and least don't be infantile about infants. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) More to the point, I'm curious if Jimbo went through this 40 kB article and decided that it wasn't up to WP standards, or something. Or, perhaps he just DECIDED that if he looked at the childcare articles (not that he really did), he wouldn't find them up to WP standards. Okay, how did he arrive at this conclusion that WP is relatively poor on issues surrounding early childcare?? Did the new mother of Jimbo's new baby try to find info on child care on WP? What topic was it that she complained about? Perhaps Jimbo himself had to resort to WP, in the middle of the night, with a screaming infant? And what about WP:NOTMANUAL? What is it that Jimbo would like to see here? Here's the thing: there's nothing to back up his assertion. There's an article with 56 references on baby diapers. There's an 8-reference article on diaper bags. And a 26 ref article on pacifiers (includes a section on adult pacifiers, WTF). The article on infant has a "see also" section on infant care which links WP articles on: * Bassinet (infant bed) * Bathing* Cradle cap* Day care* Diaper rash* Infant formula* Infant massage* Immunization* Paternal bond* Umbilical cordAs well as the ones already mentioned. The one on diaper bags has tips about organizing a diaper bag. With article links. You tend to make broad, generalized statements in your talks, Jimbo. And they sound believable. But Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. You fail to provide verifiable citations from reliable sources for what you say. Good thing you don't edit much. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(EricBarbour @ Mon 8th August 2011, 1:10am) QUOTE(A Horse With No Name @ Sun 7th August 2011, 6:02pm) QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Sun 7th August 2011, 7:01pm) Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has launched a recruitment drive for women because its team of "26-year-old geeky, male" contributors lack the expertise to edit some of its pages. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) Let the little bastards hire their own whores. (No, wait, to be more precise, they are the whores.) Nevermind that. What's this blather about needing women, because "male geeks" lack expertise in the topics? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/pinch.gif) Since when has editing WP been about the editors needing "expertise"? Having personal expertise in the subject only tempts you toward endless edit wars involving WP:V, and other problems with editors who don't have expertise and don't know the literature, and therefore don't believe or accept your cites. Or (even harder to defend) don't think your views are representative of a significant expert POV in the area, and so cause an unbalanced article emphasis, which causes NPOV/neutrality issues. Arghh. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tearinghairout.gif) Jimbo is capable of such bullshit. And his journalist audience is capable of such ignorance. Jimbo can stand there and say WP has launched a recruitment drive because "26-year-old geeky, male contributors lack the expertise to edit some of its pages," and NOBODY will challenge him on the point that WMF's partly line is that editorial "subject matter expertise" is supposed to be irrelevant on WP.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Tue 9th August 2011, 4:19am) Wikipedia seeks out female contributorsWomen in Technology09/08/2011 Wikipedia, the online encyclopaedia written by the general public, is on the search for more female contributors. Jimmy Wales, who founded the website in 2001, claims that as the majority of its unpaid staff are "26-year-old geeky, ...and more »View the article All these stories are based on Jimbo's Haifa talk, and his entire remarks are based on THIS study, which nobody seems to have read: http://www.wikipediasurvey.org/docs/Wikipe...h2010-FINAL.pdfIt's a return survey of WP users that has about 170,000 returns. We have no idea if women are more likely to return the survey or not, so we start out with a bias that is never discussed. But let us look at the results: The answerers use the following language wikipedias: 26% Russian 25% English 13% German 11% Spanish 4% Dutch There are many more languages, but only 8 more with more than 1% each (and none of these above 3%) The countires are dominated by 4 areas: Russian Fed: 18% German 11% US 10% UA (I don't know what this is, but perhaps UK and Australia) 4%. The rest of the world made up more than half the responders, but most of THOSE used English WP, not the others. So this survey is dominated by Russian-speakers IN Russia, and those who do speak English don't live in a first world country 1- [14/24] = 40% of the time. Where the hell are they? My guess is India. Some also perhaps in China. The mean age of the male responders was 26, that of the females 24. Gosh, that's just about the age where people are married, or looking. Alas, only 1/3 of the responders has a "partner" and just 15% had one or more children. This is where you can que the monolog about Uncle Miltie seeing the world a bit more clearly than Ottava and his fellow wankers, who seem to be represented here. There is something odd about these people, and lack of sex has something to do with it. Or to put it another way, responding to Wikipedia surveys is highly correlated with not having anything else to do on a Friday night, because this demographic should not look like this. The gender data is on page 6, and the frustrating thing about it is how disinterested the statisticians are, in figuring out what they can even from the data they have. Only 25% of the responders are women, which means that even if they are fairly represented in responders, only 1 in 4 users of WP (even just to read it) is female. Most of the users don't edit, and the rate of "reading without editing" is higher in women than men (84% vs. 63% read but don't write), yet still, at least half the "female lack" on WP is due to the fact that men are 3 times as likely to look at WP at all. Even if we used the relative tendency of females to be passive and read but not edit, if women made up half of WP users, and these only edited at the low female rate of 16% for a female user, the fraction of wikipedia contributors who are female would be at least 30%, not 13%. There's half the problem right there: lack of female use of WP, not some toxic environment that keeps women from editing it. And remember, that we're looking at women (in more than 50% of cases) in the third world. Gee, why might they not be reading WP as much as men there? (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/ermm.gif) Sue? Ms. Datta? Any ideas? You've been very quiet down at the end of the board table, there. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) Comment? Hmmm. The rest of the survey is infuriating. Somebody looked to see if the 15% of people with children were less likely to be editors, and it had no effect, but nobody bothered to break this down by gender. Since 87% of the total contributors were men, we have no way of knowing if the lack of effect of being a parent was entirely due to the fact that nearly all these young contributors were male. It would have been nice to know. Did being in a relationship similarly have any effect on whether the user used WP only to read, but not edit? Nobody bothered to look. Arghhhh. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tearinghairout.gif) Anyway, to sum up, roughly half of Wikipedia's problem is getting the women of the world to READ the damn thing at all, let alone write it. For all I know, these women are not even on the net. For all WMF knows, also.
|
|
|
|
EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Tue 9th August 2011, 10:41am) So this survey is dominated by Russian-speakers IN Russia, and those who do speak English don't live in a first world country 1- [14/24] = 40% of the time. Where the hell are they? My guess is India. Some also perhaps in China.
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, South Africa, and a few other former colonies. This is why there's so damn much in en-WP about villages, towns, etc. in India. The ru-WP is going really well, it seems to be picking up after a very slow start. Now do you see the ongoing problem? Journalists are stupid, lazy and cowardly (most of them anyway)-- they take the path of least resistance when doing a "soft' news story like this. They uncritically swallow what the WMF dishes out. No one that I've seen has questioned those Jimby-comments, because then they'd have to do their own research. And that would be WORK. The WMF needs a major, ugly scandal. Something that really makes them look like the liars they actually are. Essjay was a giant mess, but there's still some residual Wiki-luv going around. You have to beat most people over the head with a baseball bat to get their attention-- working journalists (a dying profession anyway) are no different. This post has been edited by EricBarbour:
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Thu 11th August 2011, 10:32am) Why Aren't Women Writing For Wikipedia?PSFKIn a revealing glimpse inside the Wikipedia kimono at its annual conference in Haifa at the weekend, co-founder Jimmy Wales described the typical Wikipedia editor as a 26-year-old geeky male with a PhD. Eventually he'll get married, go on to some other ...View the article God damn this is getting a lot of news play and NOBODY has questioned Jimbo's information sources or his assumptions made from them. They just assume that anything he says should be taken to the bank. And they're right! His bank. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif) (IMG: http://i288.photobucket.com/albums/ll191/Shrlocc/Wikipedian_protester.png) Helpful crowd sign for facts in Jimbo's next talk.
|
|
|
|
Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Thu 11th August 2011, 12:56pm) Researchers reveal Wikipedia gender biasesPhysOrg.comComputer science researchers in the University of Minnesota's College of Science and Engineering are leading a team that has confirmed a substantial gender gap among editors of Wikipedia and a corresponding gender-oriented disparity in the content. ...View the article This study, for which you can find full .pdf file here merits a look, as it's actually new data, and NOT the 2009 user survey from which Jimbo based his Wikimania talk conclusions. Much data from THIS (different) study used male/female userbox self-reporting of gender, then looked at actual editing patterns. Some of it is interesting. Userbox women were 16% of edits, very similar to the survey of 2009. Women are twice as likely (relative to men) to edit in people and arts articles, than history and science articles. 10% vs. 5%. Women aggregate to the social interaction areas (mainspace TALK and WT), more or less validating my comparison of WP to Facebook and its > 50% female/male ratio. There's a fun Kaplan-Meyer "surivival curve" for males and female editor, from first edit to last. It's about 20% for women at 100 days and 30% for men. Odd fact: women on WP are TWICE as likely to edit controversial articles (as defined by whether the articles were protected)! Female editors are drawn to conflicted articles (no way to tell cause and effect-- perhaps the reason the articles are conflicted is the same reason women are attracted to them, so there's not direct connection). At the beginning of editing, women are far MORE likely to leave after contributing something as NEWBs, and been reverted. I guess that last one doesn't surprise. However, once they attained experience, women were MORE likely then men to become administrators. Here's also an oddity: QUOTE We found that 4.39% of female users (673) and 4.52% of male users (4,449) have been blocked at some point in their Wikipedia tenures, which is not a significant difference, c 2(1,N = 113848) = 0.545, p = 0.460. Looking only at users who were subject to an indefinite-length block, we found a 3.85% rate for females (592), and 3.32%formales (3,274), c 2(1,N =113848)=11.2, p<0.001. So, while males and females appear to be blocked at similar rates, females are significantly more likely to be blocked indefinitely. It turns out female-users (as reported by userbox) are more likely to vandalize than males. The rate of vandals who managed to figure out how to put UP a userbox was (understandably) low, but once they'd done this, females were more likely to be blocked for vandalism than males. Which made the writers of the paper (as well as myself) question the validity of these things, at least as concerns vandalism-blockees.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |