It may well be that we don't value volunteers as we should:
"When planning marketing outreach tactics to recruit volunteers, develop
messages with words that resonate with those who would be interested in
your cause or who carry a complimentary platform. Focus on words that
reinforce your base principles -- and keep it simple. The business behind
your community-base social marketing campaign generally isn't of interest
to a possible volunteer -- but of interest is the opportunity you are
providing them to allow their voice to be part of an underlying
movement."
I have absolutely no problem with such messages or spending money on such
messages directed to encouraging more women to edit. But when people do
step up we need to value them not treat them as though there is a
thousand more where they came from.
Fred
--------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Marketing:Green: The Business Of Volunteerism
From: "MediaPost Publications" <news(a)mediapost.com>
Date: Wed, February 2, 2011 11:03 am
To: fredbaud(a)fairpoint.net
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marketing:Green: The Business Of Volunteerism
In the same way that you are trying to compete for market
share in your sector, you must work at obtaining a share of
the volunteer market. Think about volunteers as another
segment of your target audience -- those people who may
become potential spokespeople for your community-based social
marketing campaign. <
For the whole story, visit
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=1439….
Hi, I'm Nihiltres. I'm male, I live on the island of Montreal, and I have a history of trying to support others in contributing to Wikipedia. (Warning: long, rambling post follows. If TL;DR, skip to past the line of asterisks.)
I'll be straightforward and say that gender issues are not my cup of tea. I don't want to be a part of something that stirs up the kind of emotions that gender issues generally do.
Despite my aversion to the specific issue, I think that there are specific, gender-neutral lessons that we can take from why the gender gap exists in the first place. I strongly agree with Sue Gardner's attitude as quoted in the NYT that we should avoid "women-specific remedies like recruitment or quotas" and instead try methods of "subtle persuasion and outreach". Kat Walsh's essay "Women and Wikipedia" also resonated with me, particularly in the section where she suggests that "the culture is not biased against women, but rather biased toward certain traits and against others". Let me REALLY echo this sentence: "I don't think it's about gender in particular, and I hate to focus on gender specifically; it discounts the experience of the women involved and it makes things uncomfortable for the men involved."
I think that I see, through some of my help work, a pattern that might be relevant. It might be stupid, and it certainly plays on a stereotype—so please take it with a grain of salt. It has been my experience that Wikipedia is a tricky place to get started in. This isn't inherently the problem. We have a lot of rules, and many of these are for good reason. A veteran Wikipedian will have probably picked up a fair amount of knowledge regarding copyright (law), conflict of interest (journalism, ethics), verifiability (epistemology), markup ([X]HTML, CSS, wikicode)… and the list goes on. This is in some ways a good thing, and in some ways a bad thing. Experienced Wikipedians have a lot of knowledge inherent to the Wikipedian process that *helps make Wikipedia of better quality*, though it makes getting to be an experienced Wikipedian in the first place quite the learning process.
Not everyone can absorb all of this knowledge. While experienced Wikipedians will likely pick a lot of it up over time, the problem that we are facing is just to get people (and to some extent particularly women) *in the door*. Newbies need a place to start. I think that this is one of the most important places in which we Wikipedians are weak. We have reams of documentation—scary amounts of it, in fact. If a newbie comes in, there is a fair amount of reading to do before they can get started. If they skip the step, it's reasonably likely that someone at some point will come along and say "You're doing it wrong" and potentially scare the newbie off. Getting a more personal route through the jungle of documentation would be hugely helpful to these people.
Now for the stereotype. I'll stress again that I know that this is a stereotype, and that I think it will apply to many men as well as many women. This is that women tend to favour interpersonal interaction.
To quote Kat Walsh again, "I think there need to be many different ways to be a part of Wikipedia--if you're the kind of person who reads the manual first and wants minimal interaction, there should be a place for you; if you want someone to talk you through your first interactions and spend time getting to know people personally before you contribute, there should be a place for you too." I don't want it to be a gender issue, but it occurs to me that if the stereotype has any basis in reality (which stereotypes often do), it might be a general improvement that can counter an implicit, *unintentional* skew against women's participation.
*******************************
If I could make one quick fix to Wikipedia possible, it would be to integrate something along the lines of the #wikipedia-en-help chat channel on Freenode IRC (see http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=wikipedia-en-help for an in-browser version) more directly into Wikipedia. Why do I suggest such a particular change? The chat channel has several benefits:
* It's immediate. Once you hit the chat channel, you can get help synchronously, rather than having to check back for answers by refreshing a page. *Push, not pull.*
* It's personal. Once you get some help, you have a contact. If you work with the same person more than once, there's an element of trust that goes beyond "this person is a certified Wikipedia helper-person".
* It's scalable. Wikipedia is huge. If we want to sensibly get new users the help they need, we need to give them *very* simple instructions to get *to* the help. If we focus help services in one place to do this, we end up with huge wiki pages that aren't friendly to new users who would benefit most from *personal*, focused help. If I look at the history of Wikipedia's general "Help desk" page, it tends to have at least 60k bytes of wikitext at any given time. The table of contents alone stretches vertically for about a page and a half of my reasonably large (1080 pixels vertically) computer screen, using the default font size. If you can start talking with a single helper on a chat channel, it doesn't matter how busy ("noisy") the chat channel is: that's what direct messaging is for.
That's my idea, anyway. I don't want to suggest that it's the best plan, or even that it's remotely feasible. It's merely one spontaneous idea that I think could help, and I'd love to hear critical commentary on it. What *elements* of it appeal most to people? I think that looking for elements of the improvements that we want to implement is more important than finding a specific quick fix.
Here's to a more inclusive future for Wikipedia.
Nihiltres
I'm Slp1, an English Wikipedia editor since 2006 who lives in Montreal. I've resonated with a few of the introductions here. Like Sue Gardner, my work settings have always been predominately female. Like Sarah Stierch, my vision of Wikipedia includes facilitating the participation of older women (and men) who may lack the technical skills and confidence to participate. Like many others, I am interested to talk about solutions to improve the gender gap, because of the effect that it has on content.
My initial thoughts:
Based on discussions with other women, the technical aspects of wiki markup etc are challenging and off-putting for many. I'm sure I don't need to say that women are just as capable of learning it, but like it or not, especially for older women and women in more traditional cultural settings, men are more likely to have the background and confidence to try.The philosophy of wikipedia (consensus decision making, assuming good faith, neutrality) jive well with what I know of women's communication styles, and methods of solving disputes. In conflictual situations, however, these ideals often go out the window, and power-based decision making and interactions come to the fore. Entrenched editing from an ideological position, often accompanied by subtle or not so subtle bullying, is unpleasant for many, but perhaps especially for women, who studies suggest are typically prefer a collaborative approach to conflict resolution.
That's enough for now. I look forward to learning and helping come up with some good changes to the structural aspects of this project which seem to discourage participation.
Slp1
Hi, everyone.
This letter is addressed to the American Philatelic Society, to the
editor of The American Philatelist, and copied to gendergap, a Wikimedia
Foundation mailing list.
I'm doing a little research on behalf of Wikipedia with respect to
gender. You may have noticed the New York Time's article about
involvement of women on Wikipedia,
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/business/media/31link.html
Sue Gardner, executive director of the Wikimedia Foundation has been
concerned about this issue and we are discussing it, in part on a mailing
list, gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap that is open to
public participation.
I've been reading books about stamp collecting lately and in "The Error
World: An Affair with Stamps" by Simon Garfield I found this quotation:
It is a passage quoted from a piece of "light fiction", by Robert Graves
published in 1936, "Antigua, Penny, Puce":
"All English Schoolboys of a certain age collect postage stamps or at
least all schoolboys whose parents have a little money, below a certain
social level the collecting instinct must, we suppose, be satisfied
largely with cigarette pictures and gift coupons. Schoolgirls, on the
other hand...schoolgirls do not go in for stamp collecting, in fact, they
usually despise the pursuit, which is not direct and personal enough to
satisfy them emotionally; if they collect anything it is signed
photographs of famous actresses and actors. But they have brothers, and
brothers collect stamps. So in the holidays they very often consent to
lend a hand in the game. They rummage in bedroom drawers, and in their
parents's writing desks, and in boxes in the attic, and sometimes make
quite useful finds. The brothers are touched and gratified. Schoolgirls
are not interested in stamps, agree, but - this is the important point -
they are interested in their brothers' preoccupation with stamps. What is
it all about? What is the sense of it?"
When I read that I flashed on the insight that Wikipedia is a hobby, and
very similar to stamp collecting at that. I find there is a common
emotional feel about both avocations, but perhaps that is just me.
And I wondered what the statistics are with respect to women
participating in stamp collecting. What percentage of APS members are
women? Of collectors generally? My suspicion is that it is very similar
to the 15% of Wikipedia editors.
Fred Bauder
APS 128302
Wikipedia User:Fred Bauder
BTW, I'm sure the gender gap has been covered in The American Philatelist
before, but I couldn't find a convenient way to search the archives.
Please advise me with respect to that.
Hello,
My name is Marc Riddell (User:Michael David) My work is in Clinical
Psychology and Psychotherapy. I spent the 60's (rather passionately) at UC
Berkeley. Gender, and the issues it presents, are a large part of my work. I
came to the List to learn, and to be of any help that I can. I am interested
in learning how and why people and things work the way they do.
Marc
--
YOU must be your strongest advocate.
FYI: I found this discussion really interesting:
http://www.metafilter.com/100081/Wikipedia-Snips-and-Snails-Sugar-and-Spice
Metafilter is a really interesting online community. I am guessing
it's 2/3 male, which is more gender-balanced than we are. In recent
years, it's made a serious effort --with strong support from its
moderation staff-- to stomp out talk that women there find alienating
and marginalizing (e.g., rape jokes). As a reader I think those
efforts are succeeding: the rest of the community there seems to have
stretched itself to accommodate those women's perspectives.
Metafilter is very different from us (we're not a discussion forum,
etc.), but I think their core community has lots of
attitudinal/demographic overlap with ours. The women there presumably
could potentially have become Wikipedians, and in theory still might.
They are geeky, internet-centric, smart. So they're worth listening
to.
* One of the takeaways for me from the thread: the women there say
they don't want to have to repeatedly make a case for topic notability
in the face of what they are perceiving as clueless male "obnoxious
gatekeepers." They clearly find it exhausting, and many explicitly say
that they deliberately sought more friendly environments that were
receptive to their work.
* And -- a lesson from Metafilter's own experience, described in that
thread: "I'm reminded of how painful and drawn-out it was to remove
"I'd hit it!" from the basic lexicon here at MetaFilter. Changing a
basic, organically-grown aspect of a community's culture is really
hard to do, and requires smart and dedicated people willing to get in
your face about it."
There's some other good stuff there; that's just two bits.
Thanks,
Sue
--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
Joined the mailing list today. I have a long standing interest in the
gender gap on Wikimedia projects.
My view is that the gender gap is real (based on stats and experience ) and
harming our content because of the biases introduced from a male heavy
culture.
Sydney. Poore
(FloNight)
Below is a comment made on my blog by a woman named Jenny:
..
February 1, 2011 at 6:26 PM
After reading your piece in the Times I came across the blog of “cyber
anthropologist” Diana Harrelson. She just completed a study of the
Fedora community, an open source project that seems very similar to
Wikipedia. Here are some (decidedly gender-neutral) recommendations
she makes based on her study of this community:
* Explicitly state the minimum required for people to be able to contribute
* Provide easily accessible step-by-step information on how to go
through the technical steps required; include these even if they are
optional.
* Provide easily accessible contact information for people who are
willing and able to mentor new contributors.
* Reaffirm to the established contributors the benefit of new talent
to the project and set up ways established contributors can easily
make new comers feel welcome.
A simple, clear set of guidelines that welcomes all-comers might avoid
the hot-button issue of gender altogether and help to attract other
underrepresented groups, not just women.
..
Here's a link to the study:
http://www.cyber-anthro.com/beta-an-exploration-of-fedora%E2%80%99s-online-…
..
And here's a quote from it. Which does sound pretty familiar to me: I
hear similar things from Wikimedians.
"As an interviewee stated:
"So I think we are pretty bad at having resources where novices can
stumble across things on their own and "get into" the community all by
themselves. But we’re really good at – when an existing community
member meets a new person, they can usually help them get started very
well. And that’s the thing – I think that our materials, perhaps,
should be more geared towards "find a person to help you through this
stuff." I think they try to be, but they aren’t always clear enough.
Because being part of the community is about working with the people."
Beyond the process behind the idea of becoming a contributor, the idea
of just exactly how to contribute seems to be another barrier to
entering the community. Though users may be familiar with the idea of
open source from a users perspective, this does not mean they fully
understand what it means to be a contributor to an open source
project. This is especially true for those who come from traditional
leader base backgrounds where someone ‘in charge’ directs their
actions.
Survey respondents stated:
* The second barrier was figuring out that I had the authority to do
stuff. I kept waiting on people to tell me what to do, which doesn’t
work well.
* It’s difficult to find your entry point, no matter how welcoming
people can be.
* I’m new here, want to contribute more, but don’t know how.
* Very easy, the hardest part is getting started and helping out.
* Well, I’ve gone from user to contributor (as previously described),
and that feels great – I’ve wanted to do it for years, but never
figured out how (or was aware that I was "worthy" to do so) until
relatively recently."
Thanks,
Sue
--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
HI Everyone,
I'm Sandy Ordonez. I am so excited this group was started!! I don't like
writing long emails, but I'm thought i can introduce myself and share my
experience with Wiki on my first email :)
I feel into Wikipedia in an untraditional way - I worked for them for a
short time. I had moved to Florida, and they were the only New York-like
website and nonprofit in the area that I had fallen in love with b/c of how
much easier my online life was because of them, so I was like a bee to
honey.
When I started the job, i expected it to be very similar to any other web
production or communication job I had. Imagine my surprise. lol. I ilterally
had to learn the wiki ethos and culture BY FIRE in a very short time.
Needles to say, there were things I found very challenging.
Ironically, I remember this one night in the very beginning that I had
reached my breaking point, and this female Wikipedian reached out to me. I
hadn't share what i was feeling with anyone, but she knew exactly what I was
going through. Her message was: You might be going through a, b, c, d but
hang in there,..I know certain aspects suck, but the bigger picture is
beautiful." For some strange reason, being able to realize that it wasn't
just me, made handling the aspects I found challenging easier.
I have no idea if my experiences were gender based or not. However, I do
have to say that finding other women in the project that I vibed with made
things a lot more comfortable. I do feel as though the challenges in gender
gap are more reflective of technology in general, but b/c Wikipedia is a big
part of knowledge creation and sharing worldwide, it is kinda a big deal to
improve this area.. I also do think that its the only culture worldwide to
be able to honestly look at a problem like this, and come up with some
freakin cool solutions...so for me, its also a learning experience to see
how I can improve representations in the many worlds I encounter.
I'm looking forward towards whatever I can to help out. By no means am I
hardcore Wikipedian. I am the first to admit that I don't edit very often -
its not my strength or something i would just do for fun. However, I do feel
that I am very passionate about what the projects represent, and hope my
particular skill set might help in whatever way it can!!
Enough rambling. lol Warm vibes!!
best :)
Sandy
Hey folks!
When Asaf of the Israeli chapter started up the Wikipedia in
Developing Countries list, he did something that I thought was really
great: he asked everybody who joined to introduce themselves, and talk
a little about why they were interested in the list topic. Why don't
we do the same thing here?
I can start:
I'm Sue Gardner; I'm the executive director of the Wikimedia
Foundation, the non-profit organization that operates Wikipedia.
I'm interested in the Wikipedia gender gap for two reasons: 1) I'm a
woman, and I am sometimes surprised/irritated/appalled at how thin
Wikipedia is on some topics that interest me. I want Wikipedia to be
as rich and complete and broad and deep as it possibly can be, so that
I find what I'm looking for when I read it. And 2) I'm the ED of the
Wikimedia Foundation, and our mission is to make the sum total of all
human knowledge available to everyone. I know that Wikipedia is only
going to be as good as the breadth & diversity of the people who
contribute to it, so ensuring that women are fully represented on
Wikipedia is, I think, a part of my job.
A little more background on me personally: I know that a lot of women
on Wikipedia operate in predominantly male environments such as
science, technology, engineering and math. That's not my situation. I
spent most of my career at the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation,
which is an extremely female-friendly environment with lots of women
throughout the organization at every level, and I also worked at the
Women's Television Network, which had at the time a 98% female staff.
So I am very used to operating in female-majority cultures. This means
that when I first joined Wikimedia in 2007, it was a pretty big
culture shock to me.
But I'll also say that I've never personally witnessed misogyny on the
Wikimedia projects, and I don't believe that Wikimedia editors, by and
large, are sexist. (I know that some people would disagree with that.)
I think our gender gap has its origins mainly in the external
environment, and the contributing factors are many of the same ones
that result in women being underrepresented in the STEM fields. Plus I
don't think the Wikimedia movement has yet done a sufficiently good
job of stressing the societal benefits of our work (which I think
would be appealing for lots of women): rather, we've let our work be
defined by others as solely technical and 'geeky.' Plus, women don't
typically have as much leisure time as men for pursuits like
Wikipedia, and the time they do have tends to be spent in groups
rather than at a computer. I say all that only because I think lots of
women would edit Wikipedia if they had a clearer understanding of what
it is, and why it exists.
I should also say: I think that all forms of diversity --geographic,
political, ideological, cultural, sexual, age-related, etc.-- are
important. But having said that, I do think our gender skew is
particularly bad, so even though I feel uncomfortable paying special
attention to it, I believe it's probably defensible.
My hope for this list is that it'll become a space where Wikipedians
and non-Wikipedians can share research and information and tactics for
making Wikipedia more attractive to women editors. Myself, I'm not
particularly interested in debates about 'how bad the problem is' or
'is there really a problem' or 'whose fault is this problem anyway.'
I'm actually not all that interested in the origins of the gender gap,
except insofar as they shed light on possible solutions.
Following the story in the Times today, I got lots of e-mails from
people who want to help us fix things. I'm not going to forward the
mails here without people's permission, but I will probably reach out
to many of those folks and invite them to join this list.
Oh: and a little background. Erik Moeller, my deputy, created this
list today because I asked him to, and after floating the notion on
the internal-l mailing list, it looked like there might be sufficient
interest to make it worthwhile. My understanding is that this is NOT a
women-only list; it's a list for people who are interested in the
gender gap on Wikipedia, who want to help attract/support more female
editors.
Thanks,
Sue
--
Sue Gardner
Executive Director
Wikimedia Foundation
415 839 6885 office
415 816 9967 cell
Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in
the sum of all knowledge. Help us make it a reality!
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate