diversity

Few years ago I did a set of interviews about women in Wikimedia projects: http://millosh.wordpress.com/wikimedia/wikimedia-and-society/women-and-wikimedian-projects/

There are a couple of more interviews which I didn't publish, but the general point is: Working on Wikipedia is extremely stressful. If you try to count female Wikimedians which you know, much more prominent female Wikimedians are not from Wikipedia, but from other projects and WMF/chapters: Commons, Wikisource, WMF, various chapters and committees.

There are some possible solutions:

  1. Make community much more friendly (this is a goal of the Community Health TF).
  2. Make new projects which would start with clear rules about aggression and attract women there.
  3. Social network is important, too. Participating in Wikimedia projects in the sense of causal activity should be more comfortable for women.

The point is that we will always have such split (between 8:2 and 9:1 males) if we don't have a stable basis for getting new female editors.

Millosh21:53, 3 May 2010

Thanks for posting the interviews. Interesting reading. I agree that changes are needed to attract more women and also to attract other people that WMF projects are missing.

FloNight♥♥♥22:13, 3 May 2010

(BTW, I should continue with interviews. Anyone who is willing to participate should take the interview :) )

Millosh22:18, 3 May 2010

I'd really appreciate some deeper analysis of the aggression people are talking about. I definitely think it's there. But it's so hard to point at a specific problem. Maybe if we could get women to talk about actual experiences, we might be able to figure out what kinds of aggression that we can reduce.

Randomran02:55, 4 May 2010

See [1] for the charming list of "warning messages" that some users like to apply with special little programs for the purpose. Note that only the first level, complete with a falsely cheery "Welcome to Wikipedia!", is actually written to assume good faith. I've seen a case (User:Hammy64000) in which an editor was hit with four of the level 3 templates over a few edits. Note also that one of the programs automatically escalates the level of warning based on previous warnings, so that no human being need even take responsibility for deciding not to assume good faith.

Once bitten, if the newbie lashes back (e.g. User:James dalton bell), he can then be indefinitely banned for "incivility" (e.g. for calling "control freaks" the people reverting his edits and leaving these templates rather than explaining themselves.)

Wikipedia needs to distinguish newbies and protect their articles from deletion immediately after creation (there's actually a template for that but no newbie knows about it). We need to have a period during which their policy violations are politely explained. And even afterward we need to distinguish between the flagrant policy violations of vandals or those hostile to the project and those made by people with fundamentally honorable intent.

Wnt21:21, 4 May 2010

We don't want to get into trade-offs between quality and friendliness. Once we go down that road, we star a war.

A better solution is to distinguish newbies, and find ways to direct them towards good experiences. I suspect they'd have more luck expanding stubs than they would, say, trying to change a featured article. That's a good way to learn the ropes, too.

Randomran22:00, 4 May 2010

(Sorry for the delayed response, but I haven't looked in on this WMF project in a while.)

The problem isn't "friendliness", or being "newbie-friendly". The problem is that the major Wikimedia projects have attracted a lot of erstwhile contributors, & too many of the established editors abuse the template functions. In other words, they go for the easiest response towards other editors they may not have encountered before. I'm not only an Admin on the English Wikipedia, but I've editted there fairly frequently for coming close to 8 years now, & there have been times where I've been treated like a newbie or worse. (And I've thought about abusing the block function to force them to study very carefully my edit history & talk archives, but it hasn't been worth the possible negative lashback. Yet.)

There is a disturbing tendency for people to make all sorts of social faux pas online they would never even think of doing in their offline life. Not only talk down to newbies, but try to cop attitudes to established users for various reasons. I think this is what some mean when they complain about "incivility", although many think this is another way of saying someone used bad language. We should treat each other with the respect we expect when working together on a project; unfortunately, there are too many who haven't heard of the idea -- or dismiss it entirely.

Llywrch22:25, 2 July 2010

The bad attitudes between established users is a whole other set of problems. As much as I wish there were a general way to address all the incivility and "polite warfare", I think a cultural shift has to happen a bit at a time. Tackle each problem piece by piece. Improving our dispute resolution would help root out bad behavior among the most influential volunteers. Changing processes, so that they don't empower jackasses, that would help too. Finding ways to reduce newbie-biting, or at least taking away the excuses when people do it, that will help.

Otherwise, I agree with you entirely. The standard for incivility has become bad language, which means that all kinds of other disruptive and toxic behaviors are not just tolerated... they're actually rewarded.

Randomran01:01, 3 July 2010

I think you're right, and I think that fact is utterly deplorable, considering that the Orange pillar (4: Code of conduct and etiquette) states: Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner. Respect and be polite to your fellow Wikipedians, even when you disagree. The way to fix the civility problems is to fall back on this as the yardstick. 1. Is what was said respectful? Is it polite?

This is stated in WP:CIVIL in slightly different language: ...editors should always endeavor to treat each other with consideration and respect. Even during heated debates, editors should behave politely, calmly and reasonably, in order to keep the focus on improving the encyclopedia and to help maintain a pleasant editing environment. So two similar questions: 2. Is a given editor treating another with "consideration and respect"? 3. Is what a given editor is doing/saying helping to "maintain a pleasant editing environment"?

If the answer to any of the questions above is "No" (especially #1 and #2) then it is uncivil and should be dealt with. What will take some doing is getting a group of people together to change Wikipedia culture...but I think I just figured out how to do it.

This will require quite a bit of buy-in, but if we could get a significant number of current administrators to agree to band together to enforce the civility code as written, by measuring communications against the three questions outlined above, they can go out into the talk pages and start to make changes. In the beginning, this is going to require warnings and sanctions, until people start to realize that the expectations and standards have changed.

As everyone knows, I'm a civility apologist, so I'd be happy to coordinate implementation of any sort of project that is agreed upon to further the ends of making Wikipedia a kinder, gentler place to collaborate.

Noraft08:46, 5 July 2010

I would love to see it happen. I have my doubts though. I believe that you can make people polite at gunpoint, which is what we have now, but not sure you can make them respectful or pleasant. I also think the culture of terse/rough communication runs deeper than something that we allowed to happen. I think it might be representative of the population we have. I can't think of a geeky webforum that's nicer than Wikipedia. That's why moderators at geeky forums might focus on swear words and flame wars, but they can't stop people from throwing intellectual jabs at each other.

But if you had a proposal, I'd definitely sign on. The key is finding a way to get that "buy-in" that you're talking about... maybe some kind of viral campaign or something.

Randomran15:48, 6 July 2010

Inasmuch as there have been some thoughtful responses on an apparent problem in the en.wikipedia community, all of you have missed an important subtlety to my point. (Maybe it's just because I did a poor job of explaining it.) My issue is not that we Wikipedians ought to be more civil to each other (although there are times when the appropriate response is, "Fuck you"), but that many Wikipedians fail to even take a moment to learn the basics about the person she/he is debating with -- which leads to faux pas almost as glaring as an established editor putting a warning template on Jimmy Wales' talk page. (Not that Wales hasn't made edits I've considered stupid, but I wouldn't tell him as much with a template.)

If Wikipedians would first take a quick look at another's user page, associated talk page, & edit history -- all of which could be done in a matter of a couple minutes -- then use that information in how she/he respond to that person, I believe it would be an important step forward. Not only would people come to address one another more intelligently, but they would more likely write persuasive messages. And if enough of them did so on a regular basis, we might reach the point where Noraft's crusade for civility would be worth pursuing.

Llywrch04:51, 9 July 2010

I'm tempted to ban all or most message templates. They tend to be completely ineffective. New user templates tend to come off as impersonal, robotic, and unwelcoming. And templating the regulars? It's a disaster, for exactly the reasons you mentioned.

It's been a while since I've been on Wikipedia... but I can't remember the last time I saw a template on a user page that was nice.

Randomran07:21, 9 July 2010

Ban message templates oriented to new editors at least.

I'm not supportive to the {{welcome}} used here (wiki strategy) to welcome new contributors.

KrebMarkt12:19, 9 July 2010
 
 

This reply is about a month late, but I did still want to answer. In response to "I believe that you can make people polite at gunpoint, which is what we have now, but not sure you can make them respectful or pleasant," I'd like to say it really depends on socialization. Most people who would tell you to fuck off on an online forum won't do that in person, because it is unacceptable in a RL social context. Those people also won't do it on Wikipedia, because it is unacceptable in that social context as well. Lawyers arguing in court don't make intellectual jabs at the judge, because they know the consequences. Similarly, if we raise the bar (really raise it, with enforcement; not just say it is raised) and start requiring respectfulness, you'll get it. Just like judges get it in court.

Getting buy in from admins is the harder part, I think, but not impossible.

Noraft04:17, 11 August 2010
 

This reply is about a month late, but I did still want to answer. In response to "I believe that you can make people polite at gunpoint, which is what we have now, but not sure you can make them respectful or pleasant," I'd like to say it really depends on socialization. Most people who would tell you to fuck off on an online forum won't do that in person, because it is unacceptable in a RL social context. Those people also won't do it on Wikipedia, because it is unacceptable in that social context as well. Lawyers arguing in court don't make intellectual jabs at the judge, because they know the consequences. Similarly, if we raise the bar (really raise it, with enforcement; not just say it is raised) and start requiring respectfulness, you'll get it. Just like judges get it in court.

Getting buy in from admins is the harder part, I think, but not impossible.

Noraft04:17, 11 August 2010
 
 
 
 
 
 

For me, the best way to describe the situation in general is that it reminds me of the climate for females in organizations in past decades...like in the 1970s or 1980s. It is not just a matter of hostility in general, or hostility directed at females specifically, although those are a piece of the problem.

Some of the issues can be broken down and explained one at a time. But it is more the situation where the sum is greater than the parts.

FloNight♥♥♥22:14, 4 May 2010

I think we should focus more on people who understand the content (not the formatting) To put it into context, Im 15 and I am a newbie of formatting, although i understand entomology, herpetology and uncertainty systematics quite well, although formatting kind of eludes me, however many of my friends of the same age dont understand the concepts however they do understand the formatting. So i think the results of the survey are dependant on formatting rather than free time

what do you think?

Special:Mike of Wikiworld18:35, 5 May 2010
 
 

I really would like to have more interviews. We know from the 2008 survey that there are few women contibuting to Wikipedia, but there might be more reasons for that than we imagine.

Lyzzy22:22, 5 May 2010
 
 

Speaking as a male, I feel the problem now is too many female editors.
As males, we assume every other editor is male. Therefore when someone damages our favourite article, we will naturally respond as males, namely that damage had to have been both intentional and malicious. Our testosterone is boiling over at this point.
Occasionally, in these cases, the editor was female, and the "damage" was inadvertent and unintentional.

I know from personal experience if you engage in a little friendly banter with a "male" counterpart who is actually female, all sorts of trouble will ensue. It never occurs to that female editor that I am a male who believes himself to be conversing with a second male.

I have thought for a long time that there is a very simple solution to this problem.
The IDs for female editors should be displayed in pink. Label the girls as girls.
Then the boys will know when they are dealing with a girl, and will respond accordingly, which is to say, more nicely.
Now the girls are being knocked about as though they are boys. They are not accustomed to that and they really don't like it.

99.237.208.13102:48, 6 May 2010

Frankly, everyone should be treated with a little more respect. It's a very small subsection of males who respond to that kind of banter. And many men can play that game, but it doesn't mean that it leads to a more productive or enjoyable experience.

Randomran04:19, 6 May 2010
 

99.237.208.131 I thank you for your honesty - you describe exactly the culture that I meet on Wiki: guys having guy-type banter because they assume all editors are male. No malicious intention just an honest mistake. As a girl, I can tell you the pink label for girls thing just aint going to fly. Is there anything else Wiki could do to remind you that you are in a mixed environment? Pink labels for everyone, maybe? A reminder at the top of the editing box that this is a mixed gender environment so play nice?

Dakinijones11:23, 9 May 2010

Thank you 99.237.208.131 and Dakinijones for telling about your personal experiences on wiki. Getting these type of first hand accounts is helpful. Taking the discussions from a theoretical to real life examples reminds us that this is not merely a process driven exercise but is in fact meant to make the community stronger and our end products (articles) better.

Some of our editors are elderly and are not accustom to having young people speak with disrespect to them and I see this cause problems sometimes. And people with professional degrees can be surprised when the discussion are not of a professional nature but rather more of a ruckus at times. So I agree with Randomran that showing all editors more respect is important.

FloNight♥♥♥10:11, 12 May 2010

Let me echo FloNight's thanks. I also think your point about the elderly is important. We need to hear more experiences like these.

One way to make this more clear is social features, specifically more detailed profile information with pictures/avatars that are more prominently displayed in the appropriate places. It would be an interesting experiment to see whether this affected people's behavior toward each other. I would definitely think twice about my choice of words if the person I was responding to looked like my grandmother.

See Proposal:Social Interaction Features for an expansion of these ideas.

Eekim18:17, 12 May 2010

Those are all good points (the grandmothers/elderly thing). I've seen this play out on Chowhound. Most chowhounds seem to be baby-boomers, but I've seen a couple of people self-identify as in their sixties or seventies, alongside pleas for less-rough language. Most people accommodate them: most people don't actually want to offend others, and will try to stop once they're aware that's what is happening.

I've also just read Flo-Night's comment about Wikimedia feeling like the seventies and eighties (from a gender perspective), and ITA, that's exactly what it feels like. Not at every moment in every way, but there are definitely echoes.

Sue Gardner00:48, 17 June 2010