Gender gap strategy/Toolkits

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

(Many of the initial entries were copied here from Carolmooredc's very extensive draft list of resources, which is also included as an entry in the Gender Gap resource lists.) This is a page to organize and discuss the following items:

Ideas[edit]

  • lists of articles
  • talking points
  • how-tos
  • role model features
  • mentorships
  • move women from editing to admin & other roles like AFD, article clean-up, etc.
  • male allies
  • course on "how to deal with sexisim on your wiki"
  • pages to help women be admins

Links only[edit]

Lists of articles[edit]

Talking points[edit]

How-tos[edit]

Role model features[edit]

Mentorships[edit]

Move women from editing to admin & other roles like AFD, article clean-up, etc.[edit]

Male allies[edit]

Course on "how to deal with sexism on your wiki"[edit]

Resource: Free sexism consulting

Pages to help women be admins[edit]

Admin training session[edit]

Gender Gap resource lists[edit]

Discussion[edit]

Lists of articles[edit]

I did not attend the strategy session when this item was identified, so Iam not completely sure what the intended purpose is. I have included some articles which are or are about the subject of gender bias but my guess is that this topic heading was intended to serve a different purpose: identify lists of articles about women which are either missing or in need of work. Alternatively, lists of articles of particular interest to women although not necessarily about one which are missing or incomplete.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:56, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]

Talking points[edit]

Compiling a list of talking points could be quite valuable. Sadly, the most basic statistic, the percentage of Wikimedia editors who are female seems to be quite a soft number. It doesn't have to be nailed down exactly, but it would be useful if we could come up with a representative value which would be used in discussions. From some of the studies I've reviewed one complication is that there may be an overall ratio for all Wikimedia which varies a fair bit by project. For example, I've seen numbers on the order of 8 to 10% female editors overall but I believe the value is higher for the English Wikipedia. While the value for the English Wikipedia (something like 15%) is far far below any reasonable goal, it still may be useful to identify why it is higher for the English Wikipedia compared to other languages. If nothing else it might provide some insight into the drivers of the gap.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:52, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]

How-tos[edit]

Role model features[edit]

Mentorships[edit]

The two links in the mentor ship section suffer from two problems. First the existing mentor programs are not gender specific. Second it is my impression that the existing program is not particularly robust. For the gender gap initiative one imagines that a mentor program would be designed particularly with women editors in mind. I am agnostic (at the moment) about whether mentors, as opposed to mentees, should be women. However the Foundation is interested in addressing the short falls in editor counts in general as well as gender issues so one possibility is that some resources will be brought to bear to beef up the mentorship program in general and add a gender specific component.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:28, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]

Move women from editing to admin & other roles like AFD, article clean-up, etc.[edit]

Query: Part of the motivation behind decreasing the gender gap in the impact on content. Currently the statistics may be somewhat mitigated by the preponderance of male effort in non-gendered roles such as template work, spelling checking, meta-data, etc. Moving women and girls away' from content creation might be counter-productive. Rich Farmbrough 19:14 25 November 2014 (GMT).

Male allies[edit]

Course on "how to deal with sexism on your wiki"[edit]

Pages to help women be admins[edit]

Admin training session[edit]

Gender Gap resource lists[edit]

There are other lists in other places. My current thinking is that rather than compile a list of lists, we would be well served to pick the most complete which I think is the one linked above and expanded with entries from any other lists.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:31, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[]

I thought it would be helpful to place all the resources in a table. That would make it easy for readers to sort by date or by author or by title or publication or format to find relevant items. I've taken a first stab at it (see the links section above). It is more work than I had initially guessed; I'll keep at it but it will take some time to finish. I'd like some thoughts on additional fields that might be appropriate; I'd like to add them before I get too far along. For example we might consider a field with the quality rating or a field indicating relevance to various initiatives. I added a free-form comment field for brief comments wouldn't mind thinking about how to add a synopsis or abstract but haven't figured out quite how to do it within a table.--Sphilbrick (talk) 21:59, 25 September 2014 (UTC) Work continues, but some of it is mindless, while still requiring attention. I will inevitably make some errors, please either let me know, or correct and let me know.--Sphilbrick (talk) 20:15, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[]