User:Rich Farmbrough/temp105

Gender Gap


 * 1) see also User:Rich_Farmbrough/sandbox


 * http://arxiv.org/pdf/1502.02341v1.pdf
 * http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06307v2.pdf
 * http://www.technologyreview.com/view/534616/computational-linguistics-reveals-how-wikipedia-articles-are-biased-against-women/

On-wiki resource pages
User:Sphilbrick/Gender Gap resources

Editathons

 * Should link this to a list of editathons in general.


 * Meetup/globalwomen (See http://dhpoco.org/blog/2014/10/13/global-women-write-in-number-3-oct-20-23rd/ )
 * 
 * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Women_in_Architecture#October_2015_Nodes

Papers
Note: need local location of the papers I own so I can find them quickly. Possibly as media on my wiki.
 * Online harassment in context
 * (LT)


 * WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender Imbalance
 * RQ1: Gap-Overall What is the extent of Wikipedia’s gender gap, and how has it changed over time?
 * H1a Gap-Exists:
 * H1b Gap-Shrinking:
 * RQ2: Gap-Matters
 * H2a Focus-Differences:
 * H2b F-Coverage-Worse:
 * H2c F-Social:


 * Collier, B. & Bear, J. (2012). Conflict, Confidence, or Criticism: An Empirical Examination of the Gender Gap in Wikipedia. Proceedings of the ACM 2012. Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, New York, p. 383-392. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2145204.2145265 http://uxscientist.com/public/docs/uxsci_23.pdf
 * H1 less likely to contribute due to conflict (note: 3 Qs related to "making a mistake", only one "I got into conflicts" where p < .05, making this relatively weak support - the figure of 26.4% is significant though)
 * H2 females lack confidence in their ability/knowledge
 * H3 prefer to "share and collaborate" rather than "delete and change" (note "don't feel comfortable editing" were 23-34% higher, whereas "like mass collaboration/cooperation" was only 4% higher - so this speaks more to lack of confidence again)
 * !H4 lack of time - males rated this a problem more often than females.
 * Note: The conclusion "This study found strong support for the hypothesis that the gender contribution gap is due in part to responses to conflict." seems over-stated, especially bearing in mind other studies that have shown females edit in more conflicted areas than males. The question of confidence, and the suggestion that it can be built with positive feedback is perhaps more important.  This ties in with work we planned at WM2014 about feeding back on article views, could be integrated with FA/GA per Collier and Bear, and maybe other metrics. The question of "tools or systems that ameliorate women's dislike of editing others work" is a trickier one, certainly within the current framework.


 * Greenstein and Zhu WP more biased than Britannica? (Authors conclude it is more left leaning, though there are difficulties with their interpretation of the data.}
 * ../Greenstein and Zhu my response


 * http://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06307v1.pdf
 * Not deterred in applying for jobs by gender of colleagues or supervisors.

Studies

 * Pew research on-line harassment.
 * Pew "How women and Men use the Internet 2005
 * Charting Diversity

WMF
Meta page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Gender_gap


 * March 2010 UNU Merit


 * November 2011 Survey
 * https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_Editors_Survey_November_2011/en
 * http://dumps.wikimedia.org/other/surveys/editorsurveynov-dec2011/ Results
 * Summary https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/December_2011_Wikipedia_Editor_Survey_topline.pdf
 * Note: I have copies of the results.

If you restrict the data set to editors who primarily edit English Wikipedia F/M =12.04%

Presumably subject to the same systemic flaws as the 2010 survey.

Articles
Free as in sexist Reagle. http://firstmonday.org/ojs/index.php/fm/article/view/4291/3381 Proposes as causes: (a) some geek identities can be narrow and unappealing; (b) open communities are especially susceptible to difficult people; (c) the ideas of freedom and openness can be used to dismiss concerns and rationalize the gender gap as a matter of preference and choice. Refers to Freeman's Tyranny of Structurelessness (early non-hierarchical feminist groups). Also has a lot of other useful references. Effectively is a synthesis of "200 emails and blog posts" with established theory.
 * https://mako.cc/copyrighteous/the-institute-for-cultural-diplomacy-and-wikipedia

Although it mentions self-confidence as part of (a) the article focuses largely on conflict. The support for (c) seems to be based on simply mentioning two proponents of the idea (Heather Mac Donald (2011), in Slate being the notable one).

Strangely fails to draw on the cultural arguments advanced in "How to get more women into Linux" (title?)

New York Times: Where are the Women in Wikipedia
 * A collection of short articles by various


 * Oda. Tolls and other nuisances (note: one or more papers refer to this with a dead URL)
 * Uninformed guesswork.
 * Reagle "Open doesn't mean everyone":
 * One comment "As a woman and feminist, I have zero interest in this issue. Nor do most feminists, I dare say. Who cares? - Maybe women aren't more involved in editing Wikipedia entries because... it's not particularly interesting. I can't think of a more boring use of my time than editing an encyclopedia (for free!)"
 * "Nerd avoidance" - "The day when we see more women in technology fields will perhaps be the day when we see more female contributors to Wikipedia." "Fix society" solution.


 * http://nymag.com/thecut/2014/02/closing-wikipedias-gender-gap-reluctantly.html


 * http://thewikipedian.net/2011/02/07/women-and-wikipedia/

Videos

 * Storming Wadewitz & Asst. professor Jackie Wernimont (Scripps college - now Ariz State)
 * Mentions move from pseudonymous - comments "oh you're a woman" "you can't really be a woman" "you don't write like a woman" not taken as seriously - judged to be hysterical emotional - suddenly seemed to be a masculine place, where as it hadn't seemed like that before.
 * Would be a good RQ to find the proportion of such comments.
 * (Note: If this is valid then simply not identifying one's gender removes the "masculinisation" of the environment.)


 * Gendered authorship: 18th century, preferred female authors for children - men writing for children used female pseudonyms. In the case of encyclopaedias for children, they were written by men, writing as women writing for children.  (Interesting - but maybe not relevant - cf JK Rowling)
 * Talks about sustainability
 * Red herring about printed sources
 * Authority and agency - some important (but elided) issues, not GG specific
 * Q. Wikistorming - inappropriate military term to some.

Forum

 * WVU 5 March 2015.
 * Sadly repeated the uncorrected stats from 2011.
 * Some interesting examples of content gender gap.
 * Repeated the claim that Wadewitz was called hysterical no evidence for this from search. (See video "Storming"]

Books

 * Bullying in American Schools: A Social-ecological Perspective on Prevention and Intervention, Dorothy Lynn Espelage, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004
 * Structures of participation in digital cultures, 2007

A collection of essays, possibly of background interest. David Shay has four pages on Wikipedia, that are a summary of the situation in 2007, and have a rather superficial, if not wholly inaccurate, assessment of the editing model and community structure.


 * Danial Iosub.

Lots of stuff in here, but only a little on GG. Need to summarize that.


 * Reagle Good Faith Collaboration 2010 Enclaves and gender p 91 ff.

News/opinion eetc

 * http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/features/wikipedia-this-is-a-mans-world-2206207.html

tools

 * http://www.hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php#Analyze