Research talk:WikiWomen's Collaborative

Active discussions

Questions to think aboutEdit

I'd love some community feedback on a few specific things at this time:

  • What do you think of the name, WikiWomen's Collaborative? (WWC)
this is a really nice name, I think, Sarah. I have been testing this name out when writing mails to colleagues and it works fine with me. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I'd like to include other Wikimedia projects - the first two I'm going to focus on are Wikipedia and Commons, with the opportunity for expansion as the pilot proceeds. I've got a healthy list of ideas related to calls to action for Wikipedia, but I'd like community input on calls to action for Commons, and other projects, too.
just a thought: after the summer period (currently for the Northern hemisphere) people tend to have many new photos that they might be encouraged to find suitable and rather specific commons tags for and upload --C.Koltzenburg (talk)
The most important thing is a well organized list of relevant projects with good descriptions. It can be confusing trying to sort them all out and figure out what's active, etc. I have a mini-list at [[:en:Wikipedia:]Workshop for Women] which doubtless needs updating. Something more descriptive. Carolmooredc (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • On a related note, I want calls to action for women to participate in aspects of Wikipedia and Commons where more voices are needed - AfD, AfC, etc. There is a fine line between canvassing and call to action - and I'm aware that this has to be done carefully. How do you think we can incorporate peoples voices through these areas and calls to action without being accused of canvassing?
if we want good quality articles and debate I see no problem when asking specialists in for any specific discussion re AfD, they would be the knowledgeable ones whose opinion is needed on a particular point or issue, wouldn't they? And usually people care quite a bit about what they are knowledgeable about, so they might want to see a fair and truthful presentation of such information on WP and its sister projects. And in case they care just too much so do not contribute by editing (I actually heard a few colleagues say that they feel they would have to re-write the entry completely to start with...) it may be exactly this one small question re their personal and expert opinion on AfD or AfC that gets them started or entices them to reconnect to WP and sister projects. I think this process would be similar to running an academic journal where you are likely to have created a peer reviewer database from which to choose two or three experts by field of expertise to review a certain article prior to publication. By contrast, on these terms, WP and her sisters are post-publication peer review projects and these, too, grow in quality with good peer reviewers who are willing to contribute (this is nothing new, I guess). So, with view to WWC and aspects like AfD and AfC I would like to suggest we learn from academic peer review. This might include a new style reward system the actual currency of which we might figure out in intercultural workshops designed by and for women/lesbians/queers. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, trying to get butts moving without offending anyone or making them think you are canvassing can be tricky. Carolmooredc (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • How do we promote the space?
I would like to see WWC to be highlighted on the occasion of OKFest in Helsinki 17-22 September 2012 http://okfestival.org/gender-and-diversity/ because I imagine that more cooperation between the Open Knowledge Foundation Network, http://okfn.org/, communities and WMF communities would be fruitful (disclosure: I am active in both communities) --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Make it's relevance to existing projects obvious, especially by links within those projects. Run a daily ad on top of every wikimedia page at least twice a month :-) Carolmooredc (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • It'd be great to see this project piloted in at least one other language that isn't English. Do you have any ideas or opportunities? Perhaps you participate in a language where you would like to see this take shape? SarahStierch (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I just pointed list members of the new [gendergap-de] to WWC since I think it would be nice to discuss WWC over there, starting with mails. On a related note, I am in touch with colleagues who take an interest in launching an Italian version. I think that would be great, particularly in the frame of action research, it seems to me. --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative sounds fine to me. Including Commons makes sense because art related topics which have loads of women involved in them need to use Commons. I would consider adding Wikisource, too. Because women are a large percentage of people who are employed in library science, and Wikisource is a good fit for them. A general call to action is not canvasing so we would be okay if we did that. The problem is more specific calls to draw attention to a particular article at Afd. We can't stop it from happening so we do need to have a plan for when it happens. To get our new editors off on the right foot, we need to explain the rules, including those about socking, meatpuppets, and canvasing. Additionally we ourselves could note on site at the Afd that it is being discussed off wiki. This would show our good intentions, and alert the closing admin to the possibility that we will have clusters of people from the same organization participating. Because the best application of the rules should be the basis for the closing rationale in an Afd not who repeats an idea the most, having large number of people saying the same poor rationale should not change the outcome. We can make that point clear to our new editors and also on site so that it is understood that we are on board with the closing admin basing the close on the rules not the volume of editors who answer our call to action. Sydney Poore/FloNight (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sydney, thanks for weighing in. I have a few questions in regards to your feedback:
  • What WikiSource tasks do you think we could utilize in the space that could provide a simple yet engaging call to action for new editors?
  • I agree about the avoidance of canvassing. Something that made me also think it'll be okay are the announcement boxes that certain WikiProjects use to let their participants know that pages are up for deletion, as seen here. My only fear with having to explain to new editors what sockpuppets, meatpuppets, canvasing, how the process works, etc. is is that it can be pretty complex. What types of ways do you think that could be done that would be easy (like the Teahouse style of language) without having the space drenched in overwhelming policy and help documentation (like Wikipedia is)?
I think that this question of yours is a core issue, thanks for raising it, Sarah! Indeed, how manage to invite people inside a new house at the front door of which they would have to push aside a number of sizeable intransparent boxes first? --C.Koltzenburg (talk) 06:50, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 21:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, I'm getting confused, but just listing relevant Wikiproject Alert pages should do the trick and hopefully those who make it to those pages will get the hint. You always have to emphasize that Wikipedia does have a lot of polices and be patient with self as make mistakes - and ask same of older editors. Carolmooredc (talk) 14:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Pro: In psychology, the number of allies must reach a certain threshold for an individual to stand out and speak his/her mind. I think there's a self-preserving reason behind it. Actually, I think there's a large number of female users camouflage themselves as male on Wikipedia to fit in. It is easier to stand out from within than from outside. Point is, if the pilote number can build pass the threshold then the mass will follow.
  • Con: On what ground that we are allies? The binding agent is we have the same reproductive organs? If the male members or the white members have a club like this, would it become sexist or racist? If they will be judged differently then would we become hypocrites? So, I think it is critical for the collaborative to have a logical and moral ground for the intention of this project.
  • Also, I think it is premature to launch into action without thorough investigation on what is the root/cause of this significant phenomenon. Maybe there's nothing wrong with it, nature has its own way of organizing called self-generation, part of the chaos theory. I said this because there is no significant difference on overall intelligence between genders. And the percentage of female Facebook user is actually higher than male members. This is my hypothesis: most female population have a more active right brain hemisphere and EQ, they excel in intuition and social tasks. But most Wikipedia users including female members have more active left hemisphere and IQ and good with logic and systematizing. For example, myself has Asperger Syndrome and good at systematizing, if I don't declare my sex, most of my associated editors still think I'm male. So, I think it needs more investigation before we can find the primary problem to target on, if there is one. --RexRowan (talk) 16:09, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Rex! Thanks for your thoughts and ideas. The space will most likely end up "naturally" defining itself as a woman's space, but, will remain open to supporters of women to participate. In a community like Wikipedia, it's virtually impossible to ostracize people based on gender. But, perhaps I'm a bit confused on your stance. Regardless, I am glad you are sharing your thoughts!
Also, in regards to research - this is an action research pilot project. It's a pilot that will be tested to measure if women will engage in Wikipedia and sister projects at a higher level through direct activity research. As the gender gap fellow, I also have spent countless hours examining the issues we have in Wikipedia and speaking with women around the world about why they do and do not edit. The largest cited reason is "I don't have time." Of course, I could go on and on about this, and I do encourage Wikipedians interested in examining the reasoning of why women aren't contributing to Wikipedia to be bold and start research themselves. I did a research study which examined why women do edit, which you can find here. At the recent WikiWomen's Camp an at length discussion took place about why women do not edit, you can read about it here. There have also been many research projects executed by folks, some of it is listed here. (You can also simply google "gender gap wikipedia" and get a ton of stuff coming back to you..) I've decided to create an action based research project, but, as I said, if folks want to engage in researching why women don't edit - go for it! :)SarahStierch (talk) 18:52, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for answering my concerns! I will read into these links, it is an interesting subject! The personality profile of female Wikipedians is a good place to start I think. We may want to attract a certain type of female, intelligent, logical, altruistic. I don't want us to promote it like a headless chicken, we may attract the wrong type of personalities that is not good for Wikipedia, despite whether they are male or female, such as people who are illogical, lie, use internet to commit online bullying and so on.
Have you ever thought that people who say they don't have time for Wikipedia actually had time for everything else? Including playing Farmville on Facebook? I think it may be a tactic to protect one's vanity. Again, I'm a nerd, I'm only guessing as this is also the most common reason or excuse I hear from women when confronted with failed tasks. This is a good project, you have my support, just be careful. That is all. With all due respect and love! :D --RexRowan (talk) 19:00, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi again :) You make two great points - tapping into the "right market" for this project. You said it - we want our potential editors to not only have good faith, but to be passionate about sharing information and wanting to do it in a smart yet charitable way, so to say. I.e. I don't want 1000 PR agents coming in trying to write articles about their clients, but, perhaps there are a few PR women out there who might be good faith editors - I think we'll know it when we're attracting the right types. This will be an interesting experiment, that is for sure :)
On the second note about time - absolutely. Many women say they don't have time, yet, women make up the majority users of social media and bloggers. So how do we engage women to channel their energy and show them that editing Wikipedia and contributing images to commons, etc, is more impactful than playing Farmville? SarahStierch (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts: Rex is dead right in that many women camouflage themselves as men, not only in Wikipedia, but in many spaces online. This comes partly from fears of stalking, but predominantly because women who camouflage themselves as men seem to be taken far more seriously than those who don't. People make assumptions about women. For example, that they unlikely to be techno-literate, etc. I'm a woman (No! really?), but I was cutting my programming teeth on COBOL back in the 80's or thereabouts. (And so were several other females of my acquaintance back then.) I was designing web pages before Dreamweaver was invented (using plain text editors and writing raw html). And so were many other women ... sooooo, a lot of women get miffed when people assume that they're a "special needs group" when it comes to computer literacy. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have some easy-start stuff, cheatsheets, and all that — just that we shouldn't either assume or appear to assume that "women need this stuff more than men do".

Point two: there are many, many women, highly intelligent, highly educated, who are currently in the full-time-carer mode; whether this is being a full-=time mum, or a carer for an elderly relative, or whatever. This audience is an excellent one to tap, as someone with:

  • a highly intelligent brain
  • well educated (often grad or post-grad level)
  • very experienced
  • expert in one or more subjects
  • maybe profoundly experienced in dispute resolution (you try being a mum to several intelligent kids with good self-esteem and excellent debating and arguing skills!)
... is likely to feel very unchallenged and understimulated, intellectually, by their current job-spec, and will welcome being involved in something like Wikipedia as a real breath of fresh air. It may be the only adult (yes, OK, we probably won't go into that one too much, lol!) conversation they have access to for much of their day. And it can be fitted around caring tasks. Adding: I'm speaking muchly from personal experience here. I came back to the 'pedia after an extended break (having done nothing more than written an article which wasn't there, and should have been!) solely because I was thrust into a full-time-carer lifestyle at short notice and really needed something intelligent and challenging to do, which was compatible with being tied to the house. Pesky (talkstalk!) 07:55, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Something interesting just caught my eye, here [1], the graph language gender scores of sample Wikipedia users is very similar to a graph done by Simon Baron-Cohen's team from The Autism Research Center, UK. I know I can not make any assumption of any correlation between this graph and the other but I do think they reflect one of the same theme. Having a female reproductive organ does not mean having a female(right) brain. Many autistic female actually have the extreme male(left) brain. Could near half of our very male profiles be female on the autistic spectrum? I know this may not directly link to this project but I think it is an element that we should not ignore. Watch this video: [2].

Race and gender issues are always sensitive topics and could be a lot trickier than they appear. We need to think ahead and have most vital answers ready on standby. I fear that although the intention is good, people may question the impact of our actions could lead to over generalization.

I think we should imply the come for curiosity and stay for community strategy, because after an editor has done what she wanted to do, she is likely to vanish unless there's a human element that they have formed an emotional bond with. We should make our female leaders easy to identity and have a function that editors can follow or add their allies and mentors. All my love! :D --RexRowan (talk) 18:35, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Hehe! I'm female, male-type-brain, straight, and high-functioning autistic! There may be something in it ... Pesky (talkstalk!) 08:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
Indeed, individuals like you and me know that we don't have to change sex in order to think logical and perform systematic tasks. That's something that still buffling many. I remember I ordered a furniture pack for my sons' cot and put it up according to the instruction manual. My female friend said 'you did what?' in shock, and my male friends felt sorry for me because I did not have a man to do it for me, they said, 'next time ask a man to do it, where's the man girl?' --RexRowan (talk) 10:35, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
I actually find it quite hard to "think like a woman" a lot of the time. I've been accused of being "too analytical" and "too logical" by some women who wanted to find ways to snipe at me, in the past. And one of the most enjoyable periods of my recent life was being able to walk into Ikea with a virtual blank cheque on someone else's behalf (such fun!) and then spend many happy hours assembling several thousand pounds' worth of flat-pack furniture! I love doing it! I've never had a problem with stuff like that. Nor map-reading, either!

I have no idea where this next bit is best put, but I received a from-male snap over at WikiProject Medicine talk ... I dunno if it was a gender-related thing, at all ... BUT ... we females do like to be able to talk around the edges of a subject, on talk pages, and brainstorm ideas and so on which may either never make it into an article, or will lead someone to go and do some serious research so that something can be included. I made a comment which I clearly prefaced by saying it was "purely personal input", and got this as a response: ""Purely personal input" is exactly what is not needed in an encyclopedia, never mind in a medical article, per [[WP:MEDRS]]." I personally (yes, purely person input, lol!) found that extremely dismissive and wossname (can't think of the right word). Without even touching on "fighting talk" or anything as severe as that, it seemed to exemplify a huge intolerance of anything remotely resembling "chat", despite the fact that it was on a talk page, not in an article. Maybe that's a gender gap thing (I think it is) which is on an entirely different basis that what's often referred to as "incivility". I have no problem with some editors who other people state to be problematical (for use of the occasional four-letter word, etc.) - that I can relate to just fine. But this particular interaction I felt was patronising and scathing (maybe I'm being over-sensitive, due to Real Life issues). Pesky (talkstalk!) 04:47, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Great going! Nice name, very well thought-out concept. Would be happy to help promote the space by sending it out to all the women editors in India I know, once it's up and running in Sept, so do keep me posted. We're planning some online and offline stuff with women over the next few months in India and this would be a great rallying point for our efforts. Bishdatta (talk) 12:57, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hosting on WordPressEdit

After examining the pros and cons of hosting the space on Wikipedia, I'd like to see the space hosted on WordPress. Pros for this include:

  • It is user-friendly for people who don't have a lot of technical skills to call on, and it matches the expectations of internet users we're trying to reach with this project.
  • Users can create and develop tools and widgets for the needs we're focusing on.
  • The power of having our own domain name is critical to easily promoting and sharing the space.
  • Blogging and other social tools are easy this way.
  • WordPress is a non-profit open source site.

I like to think that if people are coming to a site that is promoted as a Wikimedia outreach/action space for women they will expect to be exposed to Wikipedia - so that doesn't worry me. What do you think? SarahStierch (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Your rationale for using WordPress seems solid to me. I teach at a women's college and use WordPress as the platform for our school newspaper--my students have taken to it like fish to water. So as not to rile up purists who like to see everything happen via MediaWiki, it will be important to develop a strategy to make clear linkages between this independent WordPress platform and various Wikimedia projects. Developing this strategy won't be hard for a group of smart women, and we might generate a positive byproduct of pushing Wikimedia to give more visibility to allied efforts across its various projects. --Jgmikulay (talk) 13:31, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Jenny, good to know that your students are comfortable using WordPress - that is something that has concerned me - ease of use. Do you think you can elaborate a bit more about your latter point regarding strategy and buy in? Just curious on any ideas on you have regarding that. Thanks! SarahStierch (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
This is just a comment on the difficulty of tracking Wikimedia initiatives across the various projects and platforms--Wikiprojects, Outreach, Meta, etc. Having an independent web presence will allow you to link out to the relevant wiki things but also maintain higher visibility without fear of getting lost on some obscure wiki page. There's so much going on with all of the allied projects at Wikimedia, sometimes it's easy (for me, anyway) to lose track of things. No deep thoughts here, but I hope this at least clarifies my idea. --Jgmikulay (talk) 21:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
Ah, yes, it totally does help clarify it better. And I do agree!! (And yeah, it's easy for projects to get lost in the wild world of wiki - and this would also allow us to maintain better control over the look and feel of the space.) SarahStierch (talk) 00:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with Jgmikulay; and would like to add that as this is outreach a website may be a better portal than the back alleys of WikiMedia. Excellent idea. KillerChihuahua (talk) 00:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
WGST490 here is my username(talk)

Pilot audience?Edit

This looks fantastic and I'm really excited to see it come together. The content you're considering for inclusion seems relevant and well thought out. I also don't disagree about using WordPress, especially with the need to create more of a social-network feel (but, as you say, still keeping central the purposes of the encyclopedia, I thought it was good of you to say that.)

While you point out your audiences, I was curious what your efforts would be in regard to bringing in a pilot audience to use the space and provide feedback. Do you have a more specific plan for evaluating its usability, and will this differ based on the particular audience/s you're trying to reach? You have much experience already with reaching out to new users through the Teahouse and establishing an invitation culture; will it be that that method is re-purposed for this?

I do think that having either (or both) a blog-style and forum-style portion of the space will help facilitate the involvement of new types of contributors, particularly moms, who are more accustomed to that type of online space. (Moms, among many others!) If moms are one component of your audience (I don't believe this is explicitly stated, but it'd be great!), I could assist with suggestions for how to reach out to them through the Mommy-blogger communities and their more frequented forums.

Best of luck and I look forward to seeing things develop! HstryQT (talk) 23:10, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Lori! Thanks for your feedback. You have caused me to think about the communication aspect of this - how will we be engaging this pilot audience and how will we gather feedback? We haven't examined deeply how we're going to gather metrics yet - which will encompass feedback, too. There is the opportunity to do surveys, etc, like we did with the Teahouse, but one thing that I think of: how will we gather information about our pilot participants? Where would we ask them to provide that information? (i.e. "Give us your username") Also, I figure we can use social media and of course direct invitations. I'm actually going to create a page for traffic ideas and ways to drive traffic to our site aiming at our target audiences. I'd love your input there when I get it up. And yes, moms are a part of our target audience - anyone woman or transwoman for sure. On that traffic/communication page we can perhaps put some ideas for specific women target groups. Thank you Lori! SarahStierch (talk) 21:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
See my point above about target audience. Just a thought: why not have a WikiWomen Facebook page, and direct your intelligent female acquaintances to it, and encourage them to do the same? And is it possible to search FaceBook for users who are female and have "bored" in their status? An invitation could go a long way ... (viral invitations, anyone? lol!) Pesky (talkstalk!) 08:04, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi Pesky. There already is one! Sadly, I don't have the time or the scope to develop a social media game plan that large, we might invest in it so we'll see. But yes, there is a Facebook group and I encourage people to use it (I didn't start it). You can find it here. SarahStierch (talk) 17:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

UserboxesEdit

Codes:

 
This user is a gentlewoman who strives to inspire.
 
This user is a member of WWC.
 
This user is a gentleman who supports his female allies.

Feel free to use them on your userpage, courtesy of me. --RexRowan (talk) 18:32, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

Awesome! Thank you Rex :) SarahStierch (talk) 22:02, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Given all the acronyms floating about, better to spell out what WWC means. And what about "This user is a tough assed feminist who is on her best NPOV behavior." Ha ha ha Carolmooredc (talk) 14:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

historical praxis methodology; representEdit

Thanks for inviting me, Sarah. I like the Votes for Women banner included in your invitation, a memento from First Wave feminism. (Which got the song "Sister Suffragette" stuck in my mind.) In that spirit, I'm wondering: Has anyone in the present circumstances gone back and studied how our Second Wave foremothers—or foresisters; at my age I'm a kid sister to the Second Wave, rather—went about raising consciousness some 45 years ago? Maybe it's something that needs renewing in each new generation. Wondering: Could any insight gained from that study be applicable to WikiWomen's current situation? To get more women Wiki editors onboard, I would think, entails raising consciousness among them. Which entails perhaps our finding them, but definitely facilitating their finding us and thereby finding good reasons to support the cause.

Which leads to my second thought. On my Wikipedia profile I stuck the userbox User:hmwith/ubx/fem, which in turn automatically places my profile into the category of User female. I've been in lots of discussions by wiki women editors about not identifying themselves by gender, in order not to draw hostile attention from misogynists/MRAs. So call me crazy, but has the reverse strategy ever been tried? Being out and proud women and showing them we're not scared of them. REPRESENT.

In solidarity, Johanna-Hypatia (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Oral tradition for you here, compañeras, via the 70s precursors to "solidarity groups" ... Back in the day, "consciousness raising groups" were held live and in-person-- a social get-together with a topic. As the "consciousness raising" article points out, the key strategy was "getting women out of their isolation," i.e. out of the house... Even today, it is often pointed out to me that other ladies don't find it liberating to sit home with the computer the way I do. :) Anyone else considering a retro-chic/steampunk "quilting bee" / Tertulia / Salon approach, of circling up the laptops and socializing while computing? Djembayz (talk) 04:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
A Wikipedia bee sounds *awesome*. Especially if hot delicious beverages and great people are involved. :D Keilana|Parlez ici 19:48, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Meetups/edit-a-thonsEdit

Hi Sarah, and thanks for the invite! I'd love to get involved. One thing I noticed on the page that hasn't yet been discussed here is the idea of having edit-a-thons for women and meetups. I saw how successful your initiative with the Smithsonian was, and would love to get the ball rolling with something similar in various cities. I'm a Chicagoan and I know the Field Museum has an *amazing* collection and library - they're pretty amenable to people using the library, and I think they might be interested in hosting an event for us. Not sure what the focus of that or anything would be, besides historical female figures, but I'd like to discuss it if anyone's interested. Keilana|Parlez ici 19:45, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi Keilana. We will have a page on the WWC that is devoted to providing resources for women on having events, etc. One of our biggest issues and concerns though with events is that so far they have not proven scaleable. The majority of women who engage in in person events like edit-a-thons do not continue to edit Wikipedia until the next event takes place. So how do we engage in women to do more out of that? I'm all about events taking place, it's just been a challenge for me to crack this nut. We need something that goes beyond just having women edit at an event, have fun and then wait for the next event. I'm hoping that a space like this can engage women beyond just events. So, don't think we don't want to have events - I'd love to see people take up the charge and do events - we just need people coordinating them frequently and engaging women to keep editing beyond just the events. I'm probably rambling here... I do think folks will want to do events, many of our volunteers so far have said so. We also might have some contacts at the Field Museum, HstryQT might know, as she's the GLAM coordinator for the US. I want events and fun cool things like this to happen, I just also would love to retain people outside of just those events, ya know? (I spend my days dwelling on this...because as Siko and others know - I love throwing events! I've just had to scale back on my time doing them because it's not moving the dial, yet.) SarahStierch (talk) 20:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Hmm, yeah, I wonder why that is? Maybe people are more comfortable contributing in groups. One thought I had would be to get a group together on a regular basis. We could start it off with an event to attract a bunch of people, maybe at a museum or library, then meet once a week/every two weeks/whatever to keep people contributing on a regular basis. I'm just thinking out loud right now... Keilana|Parlez ici 20:57, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
These are certainly an excellent idea for those who would enjoy / can get away to that kind of event. But we always need to bear in mind the females who either just don't like socialising like that, or who are tied to the house for one reason or another and simply can't attend them. I think it's likely to be very important not unintentionally to create any kind of in-group / out-group thing, nor to give an impression to other editors that "WikiWomen all do parties" ... Pesky (talkstalk!) 08:18, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
Pesky, that's a good point, maybe we could have something over Skype - live editing tutorials and chat? I know that's something used in the Education Program, so maybe it could work here. Keilana|Parlez ici 16:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
I've been thinking along similar lines. Do these edit-a-thons have to be in person? There was one advertised the other day on a mailing list while it was taking place, so I clicked on the link, thinking it was a collective online editing session/tutorial for women. Would more people be attracted if they could interact online at the same time as the physical edit-a-thon is taking place?
Sarah, what I'm thinking is that we have two demographics: the women who mostly like to meet, and the women who mostly don't or can't for whatever reason, and who prefer to work online. It's the latter group who are more likely to become Wikipedians, but it's the former group that the edit-a-thons are targeting. SlimVirgin TALK|CONTRIBS 01:38, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

New page for blog organizingEdit

Please see this page Research:WikiWomen's Collaborative/Blogs - and please sign up! SarahStierch (talk) 18:32, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


Diversity ConferenceEdit

On the 9th and 10th of November 2013 Wikimedia Deutschland, together with Wikimedia UK, Nederlands and the Foundation, is organizing a Conference to discuss Diversity in Wikipedia and its sister projects. You find more information on this meta page: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Diversity_Conference We are looking forward to your input! --MerleWMDE (talk) 11:15, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. This page actually has a very small watch list. I'd add it to the actual WikiWomen's Collaborative talk page and posting it on Facebook, too! SarahStierch (talk) 04:37, 10 August 2013 (UTC)


Hi Sarah, thank you for your comment. I am have requested to join the Wikipedia Women Group last friday. I will put an announcement there the moment I become am a member :) - I am posting the announcement for the conference on different pages across the Wikikipedia (including different language versions). If you have any suggestions where else I can put up a notice, you are welcome to write me those. (and of course you are more than welcome to put up those announcements yourself) :) --MerleWMDE (talk) 08:55, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


The registration process and the Call for Papers is now open. We are looking forward to your registration! You will find the registration form here: wmde.org/diversity_registration --Merle von Wittich (WMDE) (talk) 14:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Return to "WikiWomen's Collaborative" page.
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:WikiWomen%27s_Collaborative
meta.m.wikimedia.org
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-10
74317
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:X2SOKCZM6X7ROIHVC2GLIDQ3VSJ75BSS
<urn:uuid:b4b7873c-19d5-46f7-99a9-f38a76a26c84>
2020-02-17T18:27:55Z
208.80.154.224
text/html
sha1:FNHW22NM2CILQAZMKB4D6IFFMONWBXSA
<urn:uuid:3d8d5d93-b10d-4e75-9afe-d79f63239769>
https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research_talk:WikiWomen%27s_Collaborative
response
<urn:uuid:e5189178-c89e-4474-832a-2a33c5506044>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-10
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for February 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-128.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.16 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.1-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/