diversity

I'd like to see how our demographics vary with general internet demographics. Having every gender and ethnicity represented will be fantastic, but we need to see where we are relative to general internet usage. I don't know the statistics off the top of my head, so we'll use Gardnerian made up cartoon stats, but if 70% of internet users are male, but 90% of Wikipedia editors are male, we know that we're even over-represented for the general population. Similarly, we may find that we're actually doing better than general internet demographics in some areas, and if so, we may find it useful to study why. If we can identify variables that we have some control over, we might use those to improve participation of other target groups.

Noraft14:04, 18 June 2010

Since 2005, the number of females and males online in the United States has been pretty close. See 2005 stats.. As this article points out, the lower percentage of females that use the internet needs to be adjusted to account for there being more females than males in the US. 2007 US stats shows more females on line than males. Being aware of these stats, I have long felt the difference in the ratio between male to female editors on Wikipedia English is a product of the WMF and Wikipedia culture rather than a biological gender trait or a more general socialization of English speaking women.

More current general world wide stats from the USC Annenberg School Center for the Digital Future. Again, the overall gap is more narrow than found on WMF projects.

Of particular interest is the finding that more females keep a blog on the internet, and more females display photos on the internet. IMO, women engaged in these activities would be prime target for recruitment into WMF projects. At the present time, WMF is not doing a good job capturing the energy and interest of these women. (As Phillipe points out earlier in this discussion, some specialty topic dominated by females like quilting have a strong internet presence.)

IMO, women and other under represented groups will need to be invited/recruited, and the culture of WMF projects will need to be adjusted to accommodate them when they arrive if we will retain them as editors. Some of these changes are happening already such as the focus on making the sites more user friendly for people that are less technically savvy. But other changes will be needed, too.

It will be important to acknowledge the discomfort that current users will feel when proposals are made for changes. And we need to help everyone adjust to the idea that changes are truly needed in order for WMF to accomplish its mission.

FloNight♥♥♥16:44, 18 June 2010

Here's a link that might be interesting for people here -- a gender breakdown of user-contributed-content sites. (It actually labels itself as analyzing gender on social networking sites, but I don't think that's accurate -- or at least, I do not myself consider sites like Flickr and YouTube social networking.)

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/who-rules-the-social-web/

What's interesting is that the majority of user-contributed-content sites are female-majority -- including e.g., Twitter, Ning, Flickr, Facebook. Some of the reasons for that are obvious, and don't apply to us and the work we do. But still, it gives me some hope :-)

Sue Gardner22:04, 18 June 2010
 

I'd be willing to bet that we could use articles of interest to women to introduce them to editing. For example, if we went to a large online quilting community and asked for their help in fixing up quilting related articles on Wikipedia, we might see an infusion of editors that represent groups that are under represented on Wikipedia (in this case, women). Existing online groups focused on a particular topic could have a WikiProject just for their area of interest. "Hey ladies, we need help with our quilting articles. We'd like to make a proposal for you to start WikiProject quilting. It benefits your online community, because that will get a mention in one or more of the quilting articles (e.g. in a "Quilting Associations" section or an "External Links" section or something) which will drive traffic to your website, and it helps us because of the expertise you bring in creating and maintaining quality articles."

Something along those lines might be worth thinking about.

Noraft00:03, 19 June 2010

Yes, targeting specific groups to help cover our gaps in coverage seems a sensible approach. How would you envision this happening? Would it be informal invitations? Or would there be an organized effort to invite/recruit target groups and assist them in editing?

The difference (at least in theory) could be the amount of official staff support that the initiative/project receives.

If it is a formally organized effort, would this be an initiative that falls under Public Outreach or a separate program?

IMO, for this type of effort to be truly successful as a long term initiative it will need organized staff support to help maintain the momentum as volunteers come and go.

FloNight♥♥♥08:35, 19 June 2010

I disagree.

Paid staff are there to support and empower the volunteers so the volunteers can create and distribute the content.

Staff work on the software framework and foundation (easier editting, better support for other writing systems).

Volunteers do outreach. There is no "under-represented" group anywhere that doesn't have at least one representative here. That person is the start of outreach to their community.

Filceolaire10:12, 19 June 2010
 

The way I see it, the staff would not be doing the actual outreach work in terms of contacting outside groups. Instead, the work of staff would be helping provide the support structure and organization for the initiative. Currently, many of our wikiprojects and other initiatives fall apart because volunteers lack the time, and knowledge or skill about how to manage a project. An editor being enthusiastic about a topic does not mean that the person has the ability to lead a project. Having a staff person act as a resource would be helpful in many instances.

FloNight♥♥♥10:33, 19 June 2010

There's danger in assuming that the staff will "do" the work of outreach. I think (and I believe Frank would agree) that the role of the outreach staff is to, as FloNight says, create systems and processes by which the Foundation can support the work of the volunteers and work as a part of the community to do outreach. I really hope it doesn't become the "role" of the Foundation.

~Philippe (WMF)23:04, 19 June 2010
 

I think outreach can be done very effectively by the volunteers. You could basically set up target-specific WikiProjects that are not only tasked with maintaining articles on their topic area, but bringing in new editors. We could test this right now with existing WikiProjects. If it appears to work, we could then start creating WikiProjects in particular target areas.

For example, right now, I could go to quilting related Wikipedia articles, identify contributors who appear to have a good deal of knowledge about quilting, contact them and see about getting a WikiProject Quilting set up. Once it is set up, we have them recruit from outside Wikipedia.

I'm actually learning a lot about internal recruitment right now through my efforts with the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors for the May 2010 and July 2010 Backlog Elimination Drives that they are doing (which I am coordinating). We made some changes to our marketing program that has resulted in more than double the number of signups so far, and may be triple before the July drive is over. I'm fairly certain that some of the techniques we've used would work for any WikiProject.

I also think that the Foundation would do well to never forget that the number one social need of human beings is the need for approval. This is why Wikipedians have collectively dumped tens of thousands of hours into creating service awards, barnstars, userboxes, and other forms of recognition. WMF can (and should) use this to its advantage, and besides, every nonprofit organization should have a recognition program for volunteers. An award designed and bestowed by WMF would motivate volunteers to move mountains.

Noraft10:29, 21 June 2010

Two quick comments on this thread:

  • I think it would be a lot to ask someone to dive directly into a wikiproject: wikiprojects can be pretty daunting, because they require an understanding of Wikimedia editorial standards and practices which new people don't have. And I also think people need baby steps to determine if Wikimedia is right for them, before they commit to as more social/collective experience.
Just speaking out of my own experience, I would never have participated in a wikiproject as a first step, regardless of how interested I was in the subject matter. My first edits were fixing small obvious mistakes --like typos and grammatical errors-- I needed to get my feet wet safely, before I was ready to make any kind of real commitment.
So upshot: I think that contacting subject-matter experts is a good idea. People are much likelier to contribute in an area they have expertise in. And people are much likelier to edit if they are invited. (I think that's particularly true for women.) But I wouldn't start people off with a wikiproject: I would let them make some small non-controversial edits to get their feet wet first.
I wonder if someone should do some experimentation -- just trying to recruit subject-matter experts to edit in their sphere. If it seems to work, we could talk about how to institutionalize support for it.
  • Regarding approval, I think Wikimedians are more motivated by approval/thanks from each other, rather than by approval/thanks from the Wikimedia Foundation. And we at the staff would be very happy to support volunteer initiatives designed to recognize and honour great work. Currently the only contest I'm aware of is the Commons Photo of the Year: if people wanted to self-organize to create additional contests/awards, I think that would be terrific. Be bold!
Sue Gardner18:49, 21 June 2010

I think WikiProjects as they currently exist are daunting to outsiders. What currently exists is not what I'm talking about, and maybe I shouldn't have used the word "WikiProject."

Nothing is daunting when you already know someone on the inside who says "This is our clubhouse. Here's the secret knock." And I think that's the beauty of WikiProjects doing outreach. You bring someone right in and surround them with warmth and Wikilove. Right now your new editors walk into a somewhat sterile environment where they don't know anyone. Of course coming into Wikipedia and immediately being confronted with WikiProject Assessment tables and to-do lists would put any new editor off, but put together right, a group of Wikipedians with expertise in a particular area tasked with outreach to non-Wikipedians with interest/expertise in that same area would do really well. You could actually run it in parallel with an existing WikiProject (in the current sense of the term). Call the outreach side a WikiClub (or something). WikiClub Quilting brings in quilters, gets them interested and acclimated, then when they are ready, they can cross the threshold into WikiProject Quilting and do the more advanced stuff, but they're always welcome to hang out at WikiClub Quilting and help the new folks, or talk with the old ones who are doing outreach.

Regarding approval, respectfully, Sue, how would you know whether Wikimedians are more motivated by approval/thanks from each other, rather than by approval/thanks from the Wikimedia Foundation? You're on the inside. I'm out here with everyone, and I can tell you that the Foundation is seen by many editors as a ghost-like entity whose presence is felt, but who is rarely seen. We interact with admins, not Foundation staff (which is how it should be, but creates a feeling like seeing a Foundation employee is like seeing a supernatural creature, or bigfoot). Whether WMF likes it or not, there is a perception of hierarchy, and above admin, bureaucrats, and stewards, there are WMF staff. None of which I had ever interacted with (to my knowledge) before engaging in discussion here.

I think you'd prefer Wikimedians to be more motivated by approval/thanks from each other than from the Wikimedia Foundation. As a CEO myself, so would I if I was in your position; its less WMF resource intensive. But I can tell you that whether they would admit this or not, any Wikimedian given a special citation only awarded by the Foundation, for work that was of special significance to the Foundation, would likely be more proud of that award than any other they received. I'm not saying you should have staff start photoshopping awards...just be aware that a WMF Award would be a powerful motivator, if the time comes for WMF to mobilize the troops for something.

Noraft20:26, 21 June 2010
 

You know, the more I think about this, the more I see benefits. If we take our WikiProject Quilting example above, when they do outreach, they're coming into contact with fellow quilters, making a connection, and when that non-Wikipedian creates their account, they'll get a Welcome! message from someone they already know, which will dramatically cut their bounce rate. Further, they'll make their first contribution by editing a subject they love, in an environment with helpful people who are like them (fellow quilters) to answer their questions and help out. And as they'll be joining WikiProject Quilting as soon as they become editors, they'll belong to something, which will help increase their feelings of belonging to Wikipedia as a whole.

Noraft19:44, 21 June 2010