Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20160106/Feature


 * As an addendum, here are the gender declaration stats for WikiProjects United States, India, Television, and Articles for Creation:
 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

! Female editor membership per WikiProject (Note: Y-axis corresponds to the percentage of women editors.) {{legend|red|WP:WPAFC}} {{legend|blue|WP:USA}} {{legend|green|WP:TV}} {{legend|#ffd800|WP:INDIA}}
 * }
 * These were mentioned in the newsletter but the stats weren't presented. -Thibbs (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
 * }
 * These were mentioned in the newsletter but the stats weren't presented. -Thibbs (talk) 16:26, 9 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Re: the methodology, I would imagine that the actual editorship is different in composition than the one represented by those who signed the project roll. (WPVG's, for instance, is filled with all kinds of garbage. It's more of a signal of wants to sign than who participates.) I'd be curious to see a metric that measured WikiProject participation as editors who used the project talk page (to discuss project concerns, not just leave courtesy notices for more public conversations) or editors otherwise active in the topic area who don't use the project talk page (e.g., more than 15 edits in topic-related articles). It would also be interesting to see the numbers relative to those who do not report gender (that is the default, right?)—they surely throw off the count. In fact, depending on their weight, it may be more accurate to call those graphs "reported male-female ratios". czar  06:47, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I kind of hinted at the mismatch between the member rolls and the actual editors who make up the project in my bullet point on "unlisted associated [sic]" (supposed to be "associates"). I notice, for example, that of the four editors who made this newsletter possible, only one is listed on the member page... A more accurate list might be found here, although that list also has some obvious limitations. -Thibbs (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Wow—that automatically generated page is great! If you have the means, I'd be interested in how the ratios of each of the two sections there compare with the one you used in the report (even just as a snapshot of now rather than over time). czar  18:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * {| class="wikitable collapsible collapsed"

! Member List ! Current Male to Female to Undeclared Ratios
 * WP:VG/MEM
 * 268:8:237
 * WP:WPDIR/Description/WikiProject Video games Active WikiProject Editors
 * 57:4:44
 * WP:WPDIR/Description/WikiProject Video games Active Subject-Area Editors
 * 286:25:531
 * }
 * Here you go. Note: IPs (both v4 and v6) were excluded from this because there are zero on the Member List and because 99.9% of the time the IP user has not set up any user preferences so they get a default "they". With IPs included the ratios are 57:4:65 (WikiProject Editors) and 286:25:1017 (Subject-Area Editors). I'd like to wait until June 2016 and then graph 1 year of fluctuations. I'm curious how much variation we would get in a year. Another thing that could be interesting is to look at where our editing pool comes from geographically. I think it could be done pretty painlessly via the anontools template and a scripting tool like AutoHotkey... -Thibbs (talk) 03:36, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * This really puts the gender ratios in perspective. We don't have data on (at least) half of our editors and I'd wager that's only partly to do with ignorance about the Preferences page. If these are the metrics WM is using to figure out reader ratios... I still have no doubts that WP skews male, but I hope WM is using some supplemental measurement for gender czar  03:58, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that the WMF typically uses survey data to determine gender ratios. Depending on how the survey instrument is worded, there's probably a better chance of accuracy for gender ratios of survey takers. Of course I wouldn't know because as far as I know I've never been invited to take any of their surveys. The Tilman Bayer blog post that I linked in the article also has some interesting ideas about alternate means of obtaining user gender data on non-English Wikipedias where nouns like "User" are gendered. For example on German Wikipedia usernames take the form of "Benutzer:Thibbs" (male) and "Benutzerin:Thibbs" (female). I guess this would be comparable to en.wikipedia's pronoun template data (i.e. that used in the article above), but it is an interesting twist on the topic. -Thibbs (talk) 14:48, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Necroposting - I liked the graphs in the article though not the tone. I prefer a strong voice even for persuasive things, a voice unique to you, and not replaceable at all. It would be easier to remember if the article sounded like it came from a real person and not like a book.
 * Beyond that, what other problems do we have with women? The article was skimpy on solutions, and I wonder if women just don't have an interest in Wikipedia. Why's that? I can't say anything for certain, though I think it has to do with men dominating academic stuff like this website.
 * Are we being unfair to women? I'm not sure, as I've probably seen one active member at all. Perhaps our civility is on the assumption that we're all men, or we don't care what you are. Why would that be the case though?
 * So a lot of questions with no answers because I don't have enough conversations between women to go off of. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and suggestions, ! I agree that the article was skimpy on solutions, but I think the main reason was that solutions fell outside its scope which was primarily contextual in nature. The biggest thing I took away from the study was the fact that WikiProjects (such as WikiProject Albums) can and occasionally do move their male to female ratios closer toward a balance. Perhaps I should have emphasized this more. The next step (if, like me, you consider the gap to be a problem) would certainly be to look for solutions, but that's a much more difficult question. It's very hard to say, for example, why WP:ALBUM's gender ratios shifted the way that they did. It may have been a structural change, or a cultural change, or perhaps it was just fluke. In my personal view, the best possible thing to do to increase female participation at Wikipedia is simply to be nicer (especially to newcomers). It sounds simplistic but it's surprising how far a little empathy goes. -Thibbs (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Are we being unfair to women? I'm not sure, as I've probably seen one active member at all. Perhaps our civility is on the assumption that we're all men, or we don't care what you are. Why would that be the case though?
 * So a lot of questions with no answers because I don't have enough conversations between women to go off of. --Kiyoshiendo (talk) 17:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments and suggestions, ! I agree that the article was skimpy on solutions, but I think the main reason was that solutions fell outside its scope which was primarily contextual in nature. The biggest thing I took away from the study was the fact that WikiProjects (such as WikiProject Albums) can and occasionally do move their male to female ratios closer toward a balance. Perhaps I should have emphasized this more. The next step (if, like me, you consider the gap to be a problem) would certainly be to look for solutions, but that's a much more difficult question. It's very hard to say, for example, why WP:ALBUM's gender ratios shifted the way that they did. It may have been a structural change, or a cultural change, or perhaps it was just fluke. In my personal view, the best possible thing to do to increase female participation at Wikipedia is simply to be nicer (especially to newcomers). It sounds simplistic but it's surprising how far a little empathy goes. -Thibbs (talk) 17:27, 26 February 2016 (UTC)