Grants:PEG/Ada Initiative/Gender-gap admin training
Gender-gap admin training
To ask the Ada Initiative to train 20 (or more) admins on the English Wikipedia to increase awareness of issues that affect women editors, and to enable those admins to moderate and close discussions that have gender-gap implications.
created on23:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Project idea
What is the problem you're trying to solve?
Discussions on the English Wikipedia can become aggressive, particularly noticeboard discussions of behavioral issues. Women's issues may be ignored or downplayed, and editors are sometimes criticized even for suggesting that there is a gender-gap angle to a discussion. Admins who moderate and close these discussions may not realize how their actions affect the way women view the conversation.
What is your solution?
This proposal has emerged out of discussions on the English Wikipedia's gender gap task force, and I hope will become a collaborative task-force effort. It also emerged out of an idea proposed in May 2014 by Sumanah.
The proposal is to train 20 admins (as a first step) to become aware of how certain issues affect women and the gender gap on the English Wikipedia. Any editor would be able to request that a discussion with gender-gap implications be moderated and closed by one of those admins. The hope is that other admins would respect those decisions.
The Foundation would be asked for a grant to set up a training programme created and implemented by the Ada Initiative. The training could be done online by videoconference, or in person, depending on financing. An online course would be cheaper, and would attract people who might prefer not to travel, although a face-to-face course would be beneficial in other ways.
I would also like to ask the Ada Initiative to create a questionnaire or interview for interested candidates, to make sure we select trainees who already have some awareness of these issues, and who are most likely to benefit from the training.
To keep this simple, I've suggested training people who are already admins, but there's no reason this couldn't be extended to any experienced editor.
This proposal is in its earliest stage, and I hope others will help to refine and guide it.
Budget
The bulk of the grant would be to cover the trainers' fees. A first step would be to request an estimate from the Ada Initiative.
Goals
Get Involved
Participants
- SlimVirgin (talk) 23:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Community organizer Getting the bandwagon to step in is the first step. This proposal needs traction. QEDK (talk) 03:55, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Volunteer Willing to help in whatever way I can to get this off the ground. ACrockford (talk) 12:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Endorsements
- Gobōnobō + c 23:43, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- Would prefer in-person training initially, or at least the ability to participate by video-conference, until the program can become more established. Input from admins will be needed in the embryo stages, and would benefit from face-to-face group process. —Neotarf (talk) 00:05, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- A question has been raised elsewhere about the length of the session. A week-long session would be ideal, but practically, not everyone can afford to miss work for that long, and a weekend course would easier for participants to attend. Other suggestions have been made for a course that could be delivered during a group's regular evening meetup. This might be considered in the future, but in the development phase at least, a longer session would be more valuable. —Neotarf (talk) 15:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
- Great idea. In-person would be good, of course, but given that shipping and accommodating people from all over the world would add at a zero (possibly two) to the budget and restrict it to big, relatively infrequent sessions, it would be good to explore the online route with the Ada Initiative. In the end, the advantages and disadvantages of online vs physical need to be weighed against each other—and they might be multifactorial. The advantages of online would include a reach to many more candidates, who are not put off by the distraction of a long-distance commute. I presume a "manual" for participants and the basic structure of a curriculum would be produced (the draft curriculum would enhance a funding application). The initial survey might inquire into connectivity and devices; the WMF can advise on how strong connectivity needs to be for google vid (and audio) conferences to work. Tony (talk) 00:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Excellent. Training on this issue will reverberate positively through all the Admins do. Carolmooredc (talk) 13:22, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- Good idea. I am not an admin, but I have been in an Ada Initative workshop through my workplace (Mozilla) and it was excellent; very positively focused, had lots of discussion in small groups, and gave everyone who participated food for thought. A combination of online and in-person workshops would be best, I think. AI workshops could work very well, if adapted to Wikimedia admin concerns. In the interestes of full disclosure: I am on the Ada Initiative advisory board. (And also a long time evangelist and editor on Wikipedia & wikis in general.) Geeklizzard
- This seems like high-leverage, low-cost (assuming online) way to significantly influence the experience of editing Wikipedia for the better. The idea for a screening questionnaire is a good idea since our expertise is in educating and giving tools to people who want to help but just don't know how. The Ada Initiative is currently in the middle of our fundraiser, so I can't add a lot now, except to say that we're interested in exploring this further and would consider developing this training. Valerie Aurora (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
- I am honored that my speech from Wiki Conference USA helped you develop this idea, SlimVirgin! I agree with other endorsers that this is a promising idea. It works with existing institutions (the English Wikipedia admin community and the Ada Initiative) and their skills. And, in my opinion, it aims at training and empowering enough admins to make a genuine difference in onwiki discussions. I have participated in and taught the Ada Initiative's ally skills training workshop and can attest to the quality of the materials and the experience; the proposed gender-gap admin training would concentrate on similar skills and issues. Disclosure: I sit on the board of directors of the Ada Initiative. I am a former Wikimedia Foundation employee (I left very recently, so I'm mentioning this in case anyone reading thinks I am still at WMF). Sumana Harihareswara 18:41, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Another AI advisor who is also an occasional wikipedian chiming in here in support of this proposal. I've both attended and taught the Ally Skills workshop that Sumana mentioned, and I also think that a similar training that focuses on WP admin issues would be super rad :) Leigh Honeywell (talk) 21:26, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
- Chris Keating (The Land) (talk) 19:29, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
- This is such a great idea. We desperately need this to help change cultural problems. Keilana|Parlez ici 20:05, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
- I would definitely appreciate this kind of training; admins work with editors who they almost always know absolutely nothing about and this becomes especially important when having to deal with problematic conduct or closing heated discussions on controversial topics. Understanding better ways to maintain the 'pedia that help retain underrepresented and interested editors is something I value and I therefore support this initiative. I JethroBT (talk) 10:36, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
- Absolutely endorse this kind of training. It would also set a fantastic precedent for how the Wiki community approaches potentially sensitive issues in general. ACrockford (talk) 13:24, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
- A wonderful and constructive proposal likely to result in a positive for all. We need more admins. We need a more positive atmosphere. The culture on wikipedia must change if this enterprise is to continue. Fully support admin training as proposed by SlimVirgin. EChastain (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- Why we need to work with Ada Initiative, if we can use Skype as effectively? Either way, I am not against this idea and I do think that it will lead to a better vibe. However, in order for this vibe to work we need to have at least one female admin that will train females. As user @I JethroBT: knows, I have greeted many users in the past, majority of which were from Middle East, at least half of them probably were women. Not a single one of them joined our community though. :(
- As far as user @Keilana: comment goes, he brings a good point. This issue is not as much gender based, as much culture based. For example, majority of women from Middle East, Africa, India, or Eastern Europe, are still shy of afraid of joining Wikipedia (although Russian Wikipedia is a bit different in that respect). Perhaps it have something to do with old belief that "one sex is working class, and the other sex is a housewife", plus/minus religiuous views on the Internet as whole. Not to mention that the other reason why we have less female users is because in some countries Internet is costly, and mostly men can afford it (Africa is an example here). Feel free to cortrect me though, but not much have changed since outstead of the former President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt when it comes to women and Internet in that region. :(--Mishae (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
- I really like this suggestion. I have long thought that Wikipedia has reached a stage where we all need more training in classroom-like settings, and this could be a first step in that direction. I watched a video at the Ada site and it was great. If this suggestion is implemented and is successful it could serve as an example for other training ideas. I'd also very much like to see training in the use of the consensus method of problem solving; trained individuals could then be used in the many difficult discussions that arise on the talk pages. I would not agree to the suggestion that "The hope is that other admins would respect those decisions" as it would cause resentment and debate right off the bat, IMO. Gandydancer (talk) 12:12, 5 March 2015 (UTC)