Community Insights/Community Insights 2020 Report/Collaboration, Diversity & Inclusion (2020)/Geographical and project differences

Add links
From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
2020 Collaboration, Diversity & Inclusion Supplement

Geographical and project differences in the experienced Wikimedia social environment[edit]

To examine potential differences in Collaborative Engagement, Diversity, and Inclusion experienced by movement contributors with different geographic or project profiles, we looked at key geographies (i.e. Continent) as well as project space (i.e., Wikipedia, Other Wikimedia project space, Affiliates, Movement Organizers, and Developer spaces).

Geography[edit]

Before diving into geographic differences found along the Collaborative Engagement and Diversity & Inclusion factors, it is important to note some intersections between geography and the individual demographics already considered. While there was no significant difference in the continental distribution of males to non-males, there were significant differences in terms of English fluency, Age, and Education. 1

  • Figure 1. We were more likely to hear from non-English fluent contributors from the continents of Africa and North America than other continental regions.
    Figure 1. We were more likely to hear from non-English fluent contributors from the continents of Africa and North America than other continental regions.
  • Figure 2. Contributors in Africa, Asia & Pacific, and South America were twice as likely to be under the age of 35 than in North America and Europe.
    Figure 2. Contributors in Africa, Asia & Pacific, and South America were twice as likely to be under the age of 35 than in North America and Europe.
  • Figure 3. Contributors in Asia & Pacific had significantly fewer years of formal schooling than all other regions and were half as likely as contributors from South America to have more than 18 years. Contributors with less formal education were also more significant among audiences from South America as well as Asia & Pacific.
    Figure 3. Contributors in Asia & Pacific had significantly fewer years of formal schooling than all other regions and were half as likely as contributors from South America to have more than 18 years. Contributors with less formal education were also more significant among audiences from South America as well as Asia & Pacific.

Geography and Collaborative Engagement[edit]

As noted by the superscript asterisk marks in the chart labels, five of the nine Collaborative Engagement factors were rated significantly different dependent on the survey participants' continent. Collaborative Engagement factors were strongest among respondents from Africa with 12 to 22 percent more likelihood of favorable ratings for the factors overall. The largest differences were observed in relation to experiences of Engagement, Fairness, Awareness of Others and Movement Strategy.

  • Figure 4. Contributors in Africa and North America were 23-56% more likely than those in Asia & Pacific or South America to share a favorable rating.
    Figure 4. Contributors in Africa and North America were 23-56% more likely than those in Asia & Pacific or South America to share a favorable rating.
  • Figure 5. Contributors in Africa were 22% more likely than those in Asia & Pacific to share a favorable rating.
    Figure 5. Contributors in Africa were 22% more likely than those in Asia & Pacific to share a favorable rating.
  • Figure 6. Contributors in Europe were 37-40% more likely than those in Africa or Asia & Pacific to share a favorable rating.
    Figure 6. Contributors in Europe were 37-40% more likely than those in Africa or Asia & Pacific to share a favorable rating.

There was also a significant difference predicted by geography in terms of perceptions of Movement Leadership and Movement Strategy. Ratings by participants in Africa stood out as significantly higher while ratings by participants in North America tended to be lower across all factors.

  • Figure 7. Contributors in Africa were 61% more likely, while those in South America and Asia & Pacific were 13-25% more likely than those from North America to share a favorable rating.
    Figure 7. Contributors in Africa were 61% more likely, while those in South America and Asia & Pacific were 13-25% more likely than those from North America to share a favorable rating.
  • Figure 8. Contributors in Africa were about 2.5 times more likely than those in Europe or North America to share a favorable rating. Similarly, those in Asia & Pacific were or South America were 67% and 15% more likely to share a favorable rating than those in North America.
    Figure 8. Contributors in Africa were about 2.5 times more likely than those in Europe or North America to share a favorable rating. Similarly, those in Asia & Pacific were or South America were 67% and 15% more likely to share a favorable rating than those in North America.

Only about three percent of survey participants completing the social climate questions were from the African continent, still, ratings were significantly higher along several of the Collaborative Engagement Factors compared to other continents. Specifically, for contributors from Africa Awareness of Others was rated significantly lower compared to all other continents while Engagement scores were highest for contributors from Africa compared to all other continents. For Engagement, both North America and Africa shared higher ratings compared to Asia & Pacific. Fairness scores were lower for contributors in Asia & Pacific, and, to some extent, South America compared to Europe while Movement Strategy scores were highest in Africa and Asia & Pacific, significantly higher than for contributors in Europe and North America. 2

When looking closer into specific country comparisons there were four Collaborative Engagement factors which demonstrated country level differences. For Engagement, participants from Japan rated their perceptions lower than participants from Brazil, Germany, Russia and The US (p < 0.001), who in turn rated their perceptions significantly lower than participants from France and Spain (p < 0.001). For Feelings of Belonging, again, participants from Japan gave significantly lower ratings than those from US or Brazil (p < 0.01) or from Germany, Spain, France, or Russia (p < 0.001). For Movement Leadership, participants from Brazil, Japan, the US, and Spain rated their perceptions significantly lower than participants from France or Russia (p < 0.001). For Movement Strategy, participants from Japan rated their perceptions significantly lower than participants from the US, France, Russia, or Spain (p < 0.001).

Geography, Diversity, & Inclusion[edit]

Individual Commitment to Diversity was highest among editors in Africa and lowest in Asia & Pacific, Europe, or South America. Those in North America and Asia & Pacific were also more likely to experience discrimination. For Non-Discrimination, ratings by participants in Europe were significantly higher than for those in Asia & Pacific. For Individual Commitment to Diversity, those in Africa reported scores much higher than those in Asia & Pacific, Europe, or South America. 3

  • Figure 9. Contributors in Africa were 14-18% more likely and those in Europe were 6-10% more likely than those in North America and Asia & Pacific, to share a favorable rating.
    Figure 9. Contributors in Africa were 14-18% more likely and those in Europe were 6-10% more likely than those in North America and Asia & Pacific, to share a favorable rating.
  • Figure 10. Contributors in Africa and Asia & Pacific were 8% more likely and those in Europe and South America to share a favorable rating.
    Figure 10. Contributors in Africa and Asia & Pacific were 8% more likely and those in Europe and South America to share a favorable rating.

When looking closer into specific country comparisons, country differences were observed for each of the Diversity & Inclusion factors. For Non-Discrimination participants from Spain and Brazil rated their perceptions significantly lower than France and Germany (p < 0.01). For Inclusive Interactions, participants from Russia and Japan reported significantly lower ratings than those from Brazil, France, Germany, Spain, and the US (p < 0.05). For Inclusive Culture and Leadership Commitment to Diversity, participants from Japan reported significantly lower ratings than those from France, Germany, and the US (p < 0.05) who in turn gave lower ratings than participants from Brazil and Spain (p < 0.05). Lastly, Individual Commitment to Diversity scores were significantly higher among participants from France and the US than those from Russia and Brazil.

Project Space[edit]

Project Space and Collaborative Engagement[edit]

Whether working on Wikipedia, other online spaces, or elsewhere in the Wikimedia Movement the least perceived factor for Collaborative Engagement is Awareness of Self and Others. However, there were several factors that were experienced differently for survey participants from different Wikimedia workspaces. As noted by the superscript asterisk marks in the chart labels, four of the nine Collaborative Engagement factors were rated significantly differently, dependent on the survey participants identified workspace. The largest difference was observed in relation to experiences of Movement Strategy, Fairness, and Engagement.

  • Figure 11. Grantees were 59% more likely, and Wikipedians 32% more likely, than those who made other online Wikimedia projects their home to share favorable perceptions of Awareness of Others.
    Figure 11. Grantees were 59% more likely, and Wikipedians 32% more likely, than those who made other online Wikimedia projects their home to share favorable perceptions of Awareness of Others.
  • Figure 12. Grantees, Affiliates, and Movement Organizers were 19% to 22% more likely than most active editors as well as developers Developers to share favorable ratings of Engagement.
    Figure 12. Grantees, Affiliates, and Movement Organizers were 19% to 22% more likely than most active editors as well as developers Developers to share favorable ratings of Engagement.

There was also a significant difference predicted by project working space in terms of perceptions of Awareness of Others. In most cases, those editors who contribute as program, affiliate, or movement organizers shared ratings significantly higher than contributors to online editor or developer spaces across these factors.

  • Figure 13. Developers were 30% less likely, and Active Editors 18% less likely, than organizers and other Wikimedia contributors to rate Fairness favorably. This discrepancy was reduced to a less significant 5% difference for Very Active Editors.
    Figure 13. Developers were 30% less likely, and Active Editors 18% less likely, than organizers and other Wikimedia contributors to rate Fairness favorably. This discrepancy was reduced to a less significant 5% difference for Very Active Editors.
  • Figure 14. Affiliates were nearly three times as likely, and Developers about twice as likely as Editors to share favorable ratings of Movement Strategy.
    Figure 14. Affiliates were nearly three times as likely, and Developers about twice as likely as Editors to share favorable ratings of Movement Strategy.

Less than 40 percent of editors surveyed focused on contribution outside of Wikipedia. For those who did, their experiences of the different social climate factors varied. Significant differences were found between groups along four of the nine factors of Collaborative Engagement. Engagement scores reported were significantly higher for active editors whose home project was Commons or Movement organizing compared to Developers or those whose home project was Wikipedia. Organizers also had significantly higher scores than those whose project home was Wikipedia in terms of Feelings of Belonging, Fairness, and Movement Strategy. Those whose project home was the Developer space or Wikipedia also scored lower in terms of perceptions of Fairness and Movement Strategy compared to those whose project home was Commons or other Wikimedia project spaces. 4

Drilling deeper into online Wikimedia project spaces, Wikipedia contributors tended to share a stronger sense of Awareness of Others, but otherwise tended to score lower on two Collaborative Engagement factors, Fairness and Engagement, compared to contributors with home wikis in other online Wikimedia project spaces. (See Appendix: 2019 Descriptive statistics)

Project Space, Diversity, & Inclusion[edit]

As noted by the superscript asterisk marks in the chart labels, only three of the five Diversity and Engagement factors were rated significantly differently dependent on the survey participants identified workspace. The largest difference was observed in relation to experiences of Non-Discrimination and Individual Commitment to Diversity. There was also a a trend difference predicted by project working space in terms of perceptions of Inclusive Culture, however, it did not reach significance.

Drilling deeper into online Wikimedia project spaces, Diversity and Inclusion factors varied inconsistently (See also Appendix: Social Climate Factors by Online Project Space). Those in the organizer or developer spaces scored significantly lower on Non-Discrimination than those whose home space is Wikipedia, Commons, or other online Wikimedia project spaces indicating they are much more likely to witness, or directly experience, discrimination in the course of their activities. In addition, those whose home project is an online Wikimedia project other than Wikipedia, Commons, or Wikidata also reported higher scores for Non-Discrimination, while Organizers indicated significantly higher scores in terms of Individual Commitment to Diversity compared to those who make Wikipedia their home project space. 5

  • Figure 15. Developers were 27% more likely, grantees and organizers 17% more likely, and Affiliates 8% more likely than online contributors to share experiences with discrimination.
    Figure 15. Developers were 27% more likely, grantees and organizers 17% more likely, and Affiliates 8% more likely than online contributors to share experiences with discrimination.
  • Figure 16. Movement organizers and wikidatans were 3-8% more likely than other online contributors and Developers to share higher commitment to diversity..
    Figure 16. Movement organizers and wikidatans were 3-8% more likely than other online contributors and Developers to share higher commitment to diversity..

The Intersection of Project Space, English-Fluency, and Being Male[edit]

Drilling deeper into intersections of online project space and significant dominant characteristics of English fluency, and being Male; dominant class identification demonstrated an additive effect along several factors such that, especially on Wikipedia, non-males with no English fluency reported less positive experiences with collaborative engagement factors while experiencing more discrimination and unfair edit challenges and less positive experiences in terms of Non-Discrimination, Individual Commitment to Diversity, and Inclusive Culture.

Those factors which demonstrated more strength predicted by these dominant characteristics included: Problem-Solving & Negotiating, Self-awareness, Collaborative Intention, Awareness of Others, Feelings of Belonging, and Movement Leadership. In some cases, other online Wikimedia project spaces seemed to offer some protection from this overall effect (i.e., Awareness of Others, Collaborative Intention, Inclusive Interactions, and Problem Solving & Negotiating). 5 (See also Appendix: Social Climate Factors by Project Space and Significant Dominant Traits)

Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Community_Insights/Community_Insights_2020_Report/Collaboration,_Diversity_%26_Inclusion_(2020)/Geographical_and_project_differences&oldid=20459384"