Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention/Gender gap

Gendergap
Few women edit wikipedia to begin with; something like 9%. Women editors stop editing when the tone on talk pages bothers them. I've bristled at some of that talkpage tone myself, and my reaction has been to walk away from the keyboard. While I always return, other women find other things to do with their time. Pity. --Rosiestep (talk) 23:09, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I do the same, Rosie, either I cook a nice dinner, or take a walk, or write a bunch of uncontroversial content. I find myself avoiding admin work for the most part now because it stirs up so much drama. I wonder if the proportion of female admins is less than the proportion of female editors? Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 23:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I feel that if editors realized that there were women taking part in the conversation the talk page tone would be much more mild. I don't know if there'd be an entirely effective way to do this though.  I'm inserting another plug for the teahouse here, but I feel that notifying female editors of the Teahouse can help considerably.   is very committed to helping increase participation by women. Ryan Vesey  Review me!  23:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sarah's doing an awesome job, and I think conversations are somewhat calmer when there's someone with a female username participating. However, it's not always obvious - I know I was told when I was younger to never pick a "female-sounding" username anywhere because I would get harassed and attacked. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 23:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Civility is a catch 22, as we don't want to block good editors just for getting rude, but we don't want them rude. I was not aware that only 9% were women, which is an appalling low number.  This is yet one more issue that affects retention but I just had not thought of it.  Thank goodness for you all.  Ryan, that might need to be on the front page somewhere.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  23:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, a couple of us have pinged SarahStierch to let her know of this project. Also, folks here may be interested to know that there is a page on meta and an email list (linked on the meta page) for people interested in the gender gap and its reduction. Clearly, these projects have broadly overlapping and interelated interests. Lady of  Shalott  03:45, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking as someone who called Durova a guy to her face once, one small thing which might be useful in this regard might be making it easier to have optional "pink" instead of blue user name links to indicate the editor is in fact female, kinda/sorta like LadyofShallot has for the "Lady" part of her name. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just to point out a small issue here when Durova was being harassed by a long term abuser of WP he used her femininity as a weapon against her. So in my experience highlighting one's gender (whatever it is) doesn't help moderate the bitterness of ad hominem remarks. I had single purpose account claim I was a woman and launch a tirade based on that against me on and off site, even though my user page clearly stated I'm a guy. Before we rush into making well intentioned suggestions can we actually do some research first please. There's actually alot of material we can use-- Cailil  talk 16:35, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I became aware of this project via User talk:ThatPeskyCommoner. The comment I made there, I think, would go far in changing the aggressive quality of many article talk pages and lessen the drama everywhere.I apologize up front for the vulgarity, but I think it was needed to make the point.)
 * If we all "talked" to the fellow editor as if it were our Mother, the chances of us calling her "a f-g cunt" may be lessened.
 * I'm sure that when we start to reach out to former editors, we will find that many, if not most, leave because of the tedious, endless bickering and senseless name-calling that goes on. But, when I argue with my Mother, I always remain respectful and I dont even think of calling her a name or of being rude in any way. I've promoted this idea before but it never got any wings. Maybe this group can understand where I'm coming from.```Buster Seven   Talk  06:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you can conceive of any way of writing that out in a way which might get it into a policy or guideline, maybe. The problems that arise, of course, are that some of our moms were in fact senseless, brain-damaged drug-crazed nymphomaniac bimbos who literally couldn't pass third grade and, in rare cases, some of us might have even talked down to her as kids because of her lack of understanding of anything beyond her own [organ].
 * OK, maybe that is a bit strong above, but I did know someone from grade school whose mother boasted of completing second grade, which was as far as she got. And, yeah, her kids did, deservedly, treat her like a bit of an idiot fairly often. And, for those who did, because of circumstances, talk to and sometimes treat their moms like that here, what you're saying won't make as much sense to them. John Carter (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Granted, John, some mothers don't have the sense of a bag of beans but those are few and far between. I'm confident the upper 90 percentile of editors would get the concept if, like you say, it was presented well. I'll work on that. Love of, and respect for, MOM is universal. The manner in which MOM's are treated is universal. That's what makes it an interesting platform to build a guideline or a policy on. As to Editor retention, if we can lessen the grind of daily dealing with each other in less than civil ways, maybe editors won't get sick and tired of the place. Somehow, what they once enjoyed has turned sour. I think the answer lies in the way we treat each other. Buster Seven   Talk ''' 00:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If a basic tenet of editing at WP was to assume that every talk page is an area of mixed company (ie, women are present) would that prevent using social mores and prevailing customs as the excuse to be rude and vulgar? ```Buster Seven   Talk  14:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Gendergap from the other side: the thing which irritates me far, far more is when people assume that technical incompetence, and special needs of some kind automatically go with being female.  And, yet another side of the coin (funny-shaped coin, this ...), having worded something once kindly, politely, gently  FemaleSpeak, if you like  I was accused of being patronising and condescending, using "sugary language" was apparently unacceptable.  Pesky  (talk ) 19:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I can believe that. I think a lot of the "non-mechanically inclined female" stuff is kind of maybe all but unavoidable in the US at least, and possibly well beyond that. Also, personally, when I myself have (at rare times, admittedly) used kind, polite, and gentle language, I have occasionally heard other guys refer to it as do-not-anger-the-psycho language. Us guys very rarely show any real manners, as you probably know, and rare events are particularly notable to those to whom they are rare. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There is a new research project being planned on Meta that some of the participants in this thread might want to give input to. M:Research:Women and Wikipedia: Contributions in a Collaborative Online Space. I for one think we need a better understanding as to why we have a gender gap before we can effectively address it.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  08:36, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh! On "technical competence" and also on "patronising and condescending", it does occasionally inflame me when I bear in mind that I was cutting my programming teeth on COBOL when some of those who suggest that females might be a special technoneeds group were either not born, or at least not yet out of nappies! Pesky  (talk ) 09:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Pesky. And to echo myself for the upteenth time here before making well intentioned but flawed suggestions based on assumptions, lets do the research - there are actually a number of scholarly articles out there that treat the gender gap on wikipedia. I'll be spending today reading them and summarizing them, if anyone wants to help with that feel free-- Cailil  talk 13:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * @Cailil, I'll read them, too. I started this section not based upon an assumption, but based upon comments from other women editors.  Women editors prefer to participate in a polite-speak environment vs. a poke-the-bear-speak environment. An example of a polite-speak environment is the WP:Teahouse; quote SarahStierch: "Be friendly, be warm."; that project's goal is to nurture and retain newbies. This Editor Retention wikiproject is about editor retention in general, not women (or newbies) in particular, so I understand that the issue I raised in this section, female gender retention, applies to an editor subgroup. But I think my advocacy of polite-speak is important and valid nonetheless, whether addressed in scholarly articles or not. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Rosie, well my above isn't actually targeted at you (more suggestions like having pink usernames etc). I've been following Sarah's work and the overall gender gap initiative & think a lot of good things are happening. However when you read the research the biggest warning it gives is that simple solutions that lack a deep understanding of the issue wont solve the problem. In fact one study details that the problems for women are twofold - they get reverted more often in their first 500 edits and they're under represented in the top 25% of editors (by edit quantity) and therefore lack enough of a voice in policy etc. It also interestingly shows that female topics are more likely to be controversial (see my page on meta about the researched linked below and on my user page). I don't see teh gender gap being a sub-set issue - why we're loosing more women than men is crucial o understanding whey we're loosing naybody-- Cailil  talk 17:41, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries, Cailil, and I apologize if I came across bristle-y. I just figured that if there are few women's voices to begin with on wikipedia, I'd better speak up rather than do my usual thing, which is avoid controversy and concentrate on writing articles. --Rosiestep (talk) 17:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Not at all Rosie - my other comment was ambiguous and you weren't bristle-y at all-- Cailil  talk 18:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why don't editors just get on with writing? What does it matter what gender an editor is so long as the content produced is worthy of an encyclopedia. It is the politics of this place that deters me, pov editors, those with an agenda, too much talk and agonising instead of producing articles, people who make sweeping statements, those who quote civility (whatever that means), stereotyping and any talk of pink and feminism. To retain editors whatever their gender, decent articles (GA and FA at least) should be protected from petty vandalism and pov warriors. There is nothing more disheartening to an established editor than having to deal with vandalism and trivia only to be accused of ownership.J3Mrs (talk) 12:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with J3Mrs 100%. Of course, we live in an age of metrics and data points, so it may never that simple. Intothatdarkness 20:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think the gender gap stat may be a bit skewed (not a lot, but a bit). I know a lot of females take on a pseudo-male persona on the net (we get taken more seriously that way) and will even deliberately hit the "Male" radio button on questionnaires / profiles to avoid some of the assumptions / presumptions / reactions / behaviours that can go with being perceived as female. Pesky (talk ) 04:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason that I worry a bit about the gender gap is because I want to make sure that we aren't doing something that is making women not want to join or participate in the community. Currently, more working women have college degrees than men  yet women are still a rarity here.  Perhaps it is due to familial obligations and the cultural biases that still saddles women with the role of primary care giver for the family, even when both spouses work, or maybe it is something we are doing wrong.  I can't fix the societal issues, but if it is due in part to the culture at Wikipedia, then this is something we would like to know, so that perhaps it can be addressed.  That would open the door to a large pool of well educated talent, something we surely would benefit from.  While attracting new talent is somewhat outside of the scope of this project, the very same changes (if needed) would help us keep talent here, and that IS within our scope.   Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;  16:37, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's kinda interesting, the caregiver thing, because I found the weight to be on the other foot, so to speak. It was only when I became a full-time carer (and therefore tied to the house) with nothing more intellectually challenging to do with my brain that I came back to Wikipedia after a long break.  Would there be some way of perhaps selectively targeting some marketing to people who are intelligent, well-informed, literate, and currently restricted to full-time caring?  It's exactly people like that who could become prolific and outstanding editors simply because they are intellectually unchallenged in Real Life™ and frequently their best companion is their computer ;P  Pesky  (talk ) 07:18, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I would love to see something like that myself. I think in addition several stay-at-home parents, or homeschooling parents, might also really like the idea of once in a while talking to someone who is, well, an adult. One possible complication I could see with that, however, is I tend to think many such parents might have, well, "default" talk-down-to-the-kids ways of presenting themselves, which would seriously irritate a lot of editors, male or female. Also, maybe as an idea, how many women frequent the tea room, and might there be some sort of way to create a "Rough Guide to deal with the Macho Idiots at Wikipedia" page there or elsewhere for women who might feel they have trouble communicating effectively with male editors? John Carter (talk) 18:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Worth reading: here's Sue Gardner's February 2011 blog post on "Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words)". --Rosiestep (talk) 14:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just now saw this post, I have already put it on the front page. While this is more about attracting women to become editors at Wikipedia, obviously it affects retention once they get here.  Dennis Brown -  2&cent;    &copy;   (WER) 16:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

WMF grant proposal:  I have submitted a proposal for one of WMF's new Individual Engagement Grants. It is a pilot project to determine whether coaching new editors on their writing for the English Wikipedia improves editor retention, focusing on women and Global Southerners. If you would like to endorse this project, you can do so here. I would also appreciate any other feedback, pro or con, which can be posted here. Thanks! Libcub (talk) 03:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I've marked as historical since it hasn't been edited in over two years, and is better handled by the WikiProject specifically designed for this concern, which is obviously quite active. All discussion regarding gender issues should go there, or the main WER talk page.  Dennis - 2&cent; 06:45, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * There is a "See also" at the top of this page, under the tabs, but just in case it's missed, the WikiProject related to this is Countering systemic bias—Gender gap task force, or WP:GGTF for short. 72.223.98.118 (talk) 17:56, 17 November 2014 (UTC)