Grants talk:IdeaLab/Feature banners asking women for help
Message?[edit]
I wonder what will be the message of this banner. I think that a message like "We are lacking women, so if you are a woman please join us" would be considered offensive as it focuses on the fact that they are women, not on the fact they can help in specific areas. It might be a good idea to have a campaign inviting readers to participate but it should focus on explaining how they can help, not on their gender (although it should feature an equal number of men and women). To be honest I don't see how we can do a campaign focused on inviting women to participate because of their skills, not of their gender — NickK (talk) 01:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- You're right, it could be considered offensive... Perhaps we can avoid that altogether by talking about interesting topics in the eyes of the editor we're aiming for. At Women and Wikimedia Survey 2011#What were the subjects that these respondents first contributed content about? there's a nifty word cloud of the topics that first motivated those 300+ editors to participate. Perhaps it could be "famous women in history", "female musicians/artists", "women in literature", "women in politics"... those subjects are likely to be attractive for a woman and not so much for a man. However, by focusing on people I suspect it will invariably bring w:WP:BLP issues to watch out for. --Langus-TxT (talk) 01:59, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- I think that women in politics are interested to those interested in politics, no matter if they are men or women. I don't think that a person interested in politics would be interested in Winston Churchill but not in Margaret Thatcher (or vice versa), but a person with no interest in politics will prefer neither. Looking at the survey I see that the word "women" is probably 10th more popular at the same level as "science", and the word "feminism" is as popular as "military". The most popular words are "biography", "music", "art", "history" and "literature". I don't really see what message explicitly targeting women we can get with these words — NickK (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- Well, Lam et al found that women are more likely to focus on articles about People and Arts, while men focus more on Geography and Science (using 8 categories: Arts, Geography, Health, History, Science, People, Philosophy and Religion). That could be a start. My guess is that female characters and artists are more likely to accentuate this difference in interests, but I have to admit that this is just a guess.
- However, I've been thinking about the potential offensiveness of banners like these, and I believe that, if done carefully, problems can be avoided.
- I think that women in politics are interested to those interested in politics, no matter if they are men or women. I don't think that a person interested in politics would be interested in Winston Churchill but not in Margaret Thatcher (or vice versa), but a person with no interest in politics will prefer neither. Looking at the survey I see that the word "women" is probably 10th more popular at the same level as "science", and the word "feminism" is as popular as "military". The most popular words are "biography", "music", "art", "history" and "literature". I don't really see what message explicitly targeting women we can get with these words — NickK (talk) 02:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- For example: would the "We can [Edit]" image that's being used in some of the proposals be considered offensive to some women? If not, that image with a short text like "Click here for more info" would redirect initially interested readers to a page where we could elaborate why we are looking for female editors. This explanation should focus on the interests and passions of these persons, plus the findings of the paper above, as to explain why we are looking for a specific gender. --Langus-TxT (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
- Concerning scope, this does not contradict the prior research: "biography" and "art" are in top-3 of this research, thus we can assume that these topics are more likely to be interesting to women.
- The difference is that "We can [Edit]" is an excellent banner if we target female-only community. However, if we put it for users of all genders, this may sound like "men know they can edit, but women don't". That's why I think we should find a banner that will not have a second meaning — NickK (talk) 16:51, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- Being cautious is a good thing, but too much fear will prevent success (reminds me of w:WP:BOLD). I wouldn't mind a few complaints from offended readers/editors if we ultimately reach the objective of reducing the gap. --Langus-TxT (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
- For example: would the "We can [Edit]" image that's being used in some of the proposals be considered offensive to some women? If not, that image with a short text like "Click here for more info" would redirect initially interested readers to a page where we could elaborate why we are looking for female editors. This explanation should focus on the interests and passions of these persons, plus the findings of the paper above, as to explain why we are looking for a specific gender. --Langus-TxT (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Eligibility confirmed, Inspire Campaign[edit]
This Inspire Grant proposal is under review!
We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for the Inspire Campaign review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.
The committee's formal review begins on 6 April 2015, and grants will be announced at the end of April. See the schedule for more details.
Questions? Contact us at grants(at)wikimedia.org.
A question from Superzerocool[edit]
Hi, thanks for your idea: simple, fast and beautiful, but there is a little problem: why you estimate a cost of 2000 USD? Please, consider a brief budget :). Regards Superzerocool (talk) 17:38, 7 April 2015 (UTC)