Full Version: Wikipedia's women
Interesting study just released.
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 7th November 2011, 12:21pm) 
I'll wait for the second draft. In one of the first sections, they state that according to a survey, 8% of female respondents state that they are lesbians (and 24% are "non-heterosexual", but that includes lesbians). A couple of sentences later, they say:
QUOTE
Wikipedia is not attracting a representative population of female contributors, as lesbians account for 24% of the contributors while only compromising between 1.5% and 4.1% of the female population.
See also* proofreading.
QUOTE(carbuncle @ Mon 7th November 2011, 7:43am)
QUOTE(thekohser @ Mon 7th November 2011, 12:21pm)
I'll wait for the second draft. In one of the first sections, they state that according to a survey, 8% of female respondents state that they are lesbians (and 24% are "non-heterosexual", but that includes lesbians). A couple of sentences later, they say:
QUOTE
Wikipedia is not attracting a representative population of female contributors, as lesbians account for 24% of the contributors while only compromising between 1.5% and 4.1% of the female population.
See also* proofreading.
The first draft will be perfect for Examiner, then.
Eh, phooey - another bait and switch trick! 
Call me when Lara comes back in a tight t-shirt!
Call me when Lara comes back in a tight t-shirt!
Someone really need to teach these people some statistical method before they publish another turd dropping like that one.
QUOTE(Kelly Martin @ Mon 7th November 2011, 3:44pm)
Someone really need to teach these people some statistical method before they publish another turd dropping like that one.
Indeed, it's completely unreadable.
The obvious conclusion is that most of the women posting on WP are actually men.
Comments?
The article is drivel, but some of the stats and charts are okay.
I'd still like to know why Sue Gardner isn't being pilloried in public for this, given that she's been trying to encourage female participation since she showed up in mid-2008.
(Not that she could do anything about it, of course.)
I'd still like to know why Sue Gardner isn't being pilloried in public for this, given that she's been trying to encourage female participation since she showed up in mid-2008.
(Not that she could do anything about it, of course.)
Can someone explain how the "gendered language" parts of it work exactly? Considering that for the one, just as many women didn't use such language, it seems like there is little to no correlation to...whatever the heck they were trying to correlate there.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.