760:
other such things. It is very naive to think we can influence them in a cost-effective way. Sure, money and advertising can affect change but it is kind of like swimming upstream when you are going against culture. The donated money that runs the
Wikimedia Foundation is probably better spent on things that have value directly in proportion to their cost such as hardware, bandwidth, and coding. Let the knowledge presented in the encyclopedia itself slowly change society in ways that eliminates bias in gender, age, and race. Poor public dissemination of this editor democratic information has now shown itself to have the ability to cause damage to the project's reputation. In my view, demographic surveys mostly serve to conjure up bureaucratic work that requires salary and expense but that will not translate into a better encyclopedia per dollar spent compared to other expenditures. I'm not completely convinced of this view myself but I do believe doing no such studies is not an unreasonable notion.
949:
in the past in other forums they've experienced sexist hostility when they stood to males and such a possibility of fighting convinces them this is not a fun place to play. Some may think there no sexism here because there are so few identifiable females and few of them tend to argue their points for very long. However, in my experience should a female continue to argue her points against one or more males and run to noticeboards and get community support for her points against a couple males happily violating policies, and should she generally not be sufficiently submissive, she usually gets hammered in some way. Just because some of you haven't seen enough females stand up to enough guys for long enough on
Knowledge for sexist behavior to evidence itself, does not mean it doesn't happen and wouldn't happen more frequently if more women joined without there being some real efforts to increase civility on Knowledge.
655:
give personal info. Some registered editors identify on their user page as either male or female, but an awful lot don't specify. I am a registered editor on
Knowledge and I have a 'neutral' name and haven't told anyone I am female. I mainly edit in a traditionally 'male' area of interest (military history) and I think I would be treated very differently if I announced I was female, so I don't. So I wouldn't be surprised if the number of female editors is actually higher. Mind you, we also have to factor in the pervy male editors who claim to be young nubile nudism loving editors of Swedish origin ... (I forget her name, Kristen something, but it was hilarious to about read 'her' goings-on). And unsurprisingly, I am signing off with my IP ....
90:
720:
communities. The only reasonable way that
Wikimedia Foundation should have tried to increase female participation was with directed advertising asking them to participate. This should have been a meeting-level issue that was transparently handled. Instead, reckless treatment of the "gender gap" statistic turned into a vicious media rumour that branded Wikipedians as sexist. It is doing considerable harm to Knowledge's reputation and ironically may be discouraging women from contributing. I am quite mad about the whole issue and I think the Wikimedia Foundation should ask for some resignations.
242:
She then went on to list the reasons for the gap, one being that "for many reasons that there's no point articulating because they're outside our control, women tend to be less tech-centric than men, and they tend to see technology as less "fun", something to be addressed by usability efforts. Secondly, that "women tend to have less free time than men, and they tend to spend their free time less in solitary pursuits". Adding to this, she observed a "social/cultural barricade is essentially: women (tend to) dislike fighty cultures more than men".
856:
perceived by women. For example, the 3 primary rules are obviously in close but imperfect harmony and yet they are also in opposition somewhat, and HOW to reconcile them is often subjective. When you have Dragon
Editors, by history mainly men, marching all over and applying their billy club edits to keep things they way they INTERPRET the rules even on subjects they know squat about (and can't even spell properly) you disincentivize women contributors. Perhaps, then, as a result WP ends up as a 1910 cigar smoker's club.
516:; more than a quarter of survey respondents came from Russia, for example. Among survey respondents, it is true somewhat less than 13% were female contributors. Slice it another way, and among contributors to the website, slightly more than 16% are female. Meanwhile that 25% of survey takers were female. The numbers concerning women are considerably less likely to be accurate compared to men, but it still seems probable the percentage of female contributors is somewhere south of the 25% Gardner would like it to be.
680:
probably some bad apples out there but don't let a few characterize the majority. It is possible that your opinion has given too much weight to a few incidents or that you are viewing events through colored lenses. Regarding new editor reception, I think that
Knowledge is welcoming to newcomers and the rumor is just unfair. The perception of "hostility" occurs due to factors that are complicated but boil down to it being harder and harder for the average person to improve articles as the encyclopedia matures.
368:
117:
107:
894:. So a campaign that attracts a specific underrepresented group--whatever the reason for under-representation--is a good idea. If that's poor urban minorities, or women with humanities backgrounds, or African grandmothers, or low-tech Serbian middle-class dads, they all contribute--or at least they could--and anything we can do to attract them (short of fixing problems we're not sure even exist, and which rankle sociopolitical nerves) is a good idea .
33:
127:
87:
137:
97:
291:: "There were three times as many male respondents as female respondents. Does this accurately reflect the makeup of the Knowledge audience? Given the unexpected results for language and country, it is not clear if there might be gender bias as well". Indeed, a different estimate of the Knowledge audience by
921:
3) IMO there is no "sexism" or "discrimination" or similar nasty stuff here. People respond to you based on what you said and whether it makes sense. Gender is ignored. A lot of posters tend to assume that all posters here are male - I can't tell you how many say "he" instead of "he/she" when talking
889:
would make the encyclopedia better. There are the generally accepted reasons--tendencies towards different areas of expertise and interests; the optimistic reasons--maybe women would bring a friendlier and more collaborative tone to debates; the technical reasons--maybe (really just maybe) women are
831:
I also participated in strategy debates regarding the results of some demographic survey a year or two ago. I was very dismayed by the insight that many editors (and staff) exhibited in those discussions. For instance, the survey discovered that parents are under-represented among active editors. Not
814:
from Sue
Garnder on the Gender Gap mailing list itself? Quote: "I think our gender gap has its origins mainly in the external environment". I don't think my comment about external forces really needs a citation as it is kind of self-evident, almost to the point of being a tautology. Saying that those
759:
It is really not clear to me that it is wise for
Knowledge to even do demographic studies. What purpose do these statistics serve? Let the editors be who the editors are going to be! We really shouldn't care because our editorship is determined by external forces: culture, economies, governments, and
719:
by
Heather Mac Donald at Slate.com (Feb 9, 2011). The gender issue boils down to a lack of participation interest from women compared men. It is completely and utterly false that there is a sexist, anti-female environment at Knowledge. Our editorship is among the most friendly and welcoming of online
679:
I reject your claim that editors bite the female newbies more than males. In one post, you've done two things that I think are harming
Knowledge: 1) You have promoted as given that Wikipedians are sexist, and 2) you have further spread the "hostile environment" rumor. When it comes to sexism, there's
584:
primarily based on external sources, human editors still have a role to play in choosing what article to write, in finding sources for each article, and in interpreting the sources (whether it's simply paraphrasing a sentence from a book, or collating a random pile of those paraphrased sentences into
241:
Gardner outlined a "kind of 'theory of the problem'", starting by saying the reason why the gender gap should be considered a problem for Knowledge at all: "We want women to contribute to Knowledge because we want Knowledge to contain the sum of all human knowledge, not just the stuff that men know."
948:
is a good indication why a lot of people leave. It suggest many women tend to leave because they don't like to see their contributions removed (usually in a fashion that doesn't explain to them as newbies sufficiently why) and don't want to get in a conflictual situation about it - probably because
913:
1) the statistics may be skewed by the fact that so many of us leave the gender box at our profiles as "unspecified". It's no secret that I am female, but it doesn't appear in my Knowledge profile or my editing work. Maybe instead of tallying "male vs. female" they should tally "male vs. female vs.
827:
It's funny that you bring up the "general decline in editorship". I followed that debate quite closely. I was one of the few level-headed Wikipedians who were suggesting that the decline in editorship might not indicate a failure with the community at Knowledge but a success with the quality of the
818:
Back to the issue, in over 5 years on Knowledge I've never witnessed gender discrimination. Ever. The "gender issue" at Knowledge is pretty much just masturbatory bureaucratic-level thinking, the kind that looks for solutions to problems that don't exist. In this case, some people have latched onto
344:
In accordance with overall patterns of education and labour markets in many economies, the share of scientists among male contributors is about three times larger than the share of scientists among female contributors. Another gender specific is that female contributors tend to focus on philosophy,
738:
efforts for some historical stuff). And we should have surveyed regularly from 2009 on, but again, requests that we do so fell on deaf ears (I've made them on wiki-reasearch-l, on Jimbo's page, on conferences). What we have is some date of dubious reality, and seeing how things are done here, I am
654:
I would question how exactly the figures for male and female editorship on Knowledge were arrived at. It seems to be talking about registered users only, not all editors of Knowledge, as it isn't easy to know if IP (unregistered) editors are male or female as they don't tend to use info boxes and
620:
While I'm working on this issue in a number of other forums, I do want to make the point that has been brought up elsewhere that the problem is not just female differences in interest, etc., but the problem of active hostility towards woman who make newbie errors or who, if more experienced, stick
335:
The overall share of unregistered users among female Wikipedians is significantly higher than the respective share within male Wikipedians (52% vs. 35%). ... This gender difference is not surprising, and is probably explained by female Wikipedians being more protective of their privacy than male
255:
Another issue, criticized as "hardcoded discrimination", is that in languages where there are different female and male forms of the word "user", such as German ("Benutzerin" vs. "Benutzer"), a user page on the corresponding Knowledge will appear to denote a female Wikipedian as male (such as in
855:
Perhaps the fabric (underlying operating procedures and rules) of WP lend to a particular type of expression, a "meta-view" so to speak of issues addressed in articles, that is appreciated as surprisingly reasonable but flexible in men's minds, and surprisingly and frustratingly subjective as
787:
Citation needed. How do you know that internal forces have negligible effects? Even if you believe this to be the case, how would you know this without doing studies? Surely the gender gap is at least worthy of investigation. And even if you believe that it is difficult to directly influence
835:
You'll have to forgive me. The Wiki community has not demonstrated to me that they know how to handle or interpret the results of these surveys. That is best left to skilled statisticians. Unfortunately, it seems to me that the results of half-baked surveys get spun into distorted misguided
823:
assumption seem to have completely ignored other possibilities such as women simply not wanting to participate as much. That notion seems to irritate some feminist-minded editors who never realized that the equal-opportunity for which they are fighting does not always demand there be equal
479:
How to attract female users at universities and high-schools, and women who are not in the workforce? This might be one of the Foundation's next projects. One way to go is to form WikiProjects specifically aimed at topic areas that will be attractive to women; but that would not be enough.
348:
The reasons why women in this age cohort spend more than 2 hours more per week than men have to be further analysed, but the fact that women at this age are less often full-time employed, often stay at home in order to care for children, and often work as freelancers may play a role here.
567:
The quality & completeness of wikipedia varies widely between subjects, fields, & wikiprojects; attracting more diverse editors can be expected to improve areas that have hitherto been neglected. May I suggest an example from a different aspect of WP:CSB? There are plenty of
694:{insert} Not sure who made the claim, but the issue is not only more (it might be just a tiny bit more) but how hard and for what errors. Biting twice as hard for a minor error is much more discouraging than a little nip for a major aggressive act, be it vs. newbie or anyone else.
433:
917:
2) Let's face it, women may just have less time to SAWC (an acronym in my family that means Screwing Around With the Computer) than men. What's the old saying? "Man works from dawn till setting sun, but woman's work is never done." That saying isn't as obsolete as you might
110:
605:
Any error in that figure is probably irrelevant to the overall point being made. I don't think anyone disputes that the small group of readers who take an active interest in improving wikipedia - is overwhelmingly at present made up of white, male, educated, young adults.
572:
about both African and American geography, but we have many more wikipedians who live in the latter. Go pick an article about a random city in California, and compare it to an article about a random city in Congo, and see what editors have created from the available
469:"women (tend to) dislike fighty cultures more than men", that is basically the main issue from my perspective. Yes, women on average have a little less time are less tech involved etc, prefer a better user interface but the main issue is the fighty culture. Regards,
237:
that "the lesson for Wikimedia , is that if the community makes something a priority, and continually reinforces it, then culture change can be achieved. I find this heartening because I think the people at Metafilter are fairly similar to the people at Wikimedia".
621:
too strongly to their opinions and/or Knowledge policies, despite one or more males disagreeing with them - and even telling them to shut up and go away. (Don't get me started.) The hostility is often far greater than that towards men they have same problems with.
273:
The estimate that only 12.64% of Wikipedians are female, which formed the bases of much of the debate – having been quoted in some form in nearly all the recent media coverage, as well as in various WMF interviews in past months – comes from the 2010
359:
The report noted that the gender gap does not only show in edits, but extends to financial contributions: "Men are obviously more willing to donate money to Knowledge than women, as they show considerably higher shares of donors in all age cohorts".
480:
Ambassadors at education institutions can probably do a lot to bring in women. I do agree that the turbulent culture could be a turn-off to women. Perhaps a robust system of mentoring could be developed. It is definitely an important issue, to me.
890:
on average less inclined to stumble through learning markup, and trying to attract them will hasten usability improvements... But the overarching reason to attract more women is simple: more women is more people, and no matter where they're from,
130:
156:
100:
140:
884:
Jason, I agree it may do a disservice to perpetuate the idea that internal factors are leading women away from the encyclopedia with only rough anecdotal evidence and when the root causes may be external, but the pragmatic issue remains:
341:... female contributors to Knowledge appear less specialised in thematic fields than their male colleagues, and while their degree of specialisation increases with age, this increase is is less for male Knowledge contributors. ...
832:
only were people seemingly surprised by this, they were wondering how and why it is. Ever idealists and never pragmatists, in much discussion nobody seemed to suggest that, hey!, parents don't have as much free time to edit!
223:
I credit this both to some aggressive moderation in what is otherwise a lightly moderated site some cultivation of female members and some visible norm-setting among all the moderators for how we want the community to run.
287:("for example, Russia and Russian speakers are the largest language and country groups represented in the survey even though the Russian section of Knowledge is only the 8th largest linguistic group"), and further possible
282:
on "Floatingsheep" (a group blog by researchers from the University of Kentucky and the University of Oxford) the authors wondered "if this figure accurately reflects the Knowledge community", asking about possible
245:
Annie Lin and Sage Ross from the Foundation's Public Policy Initiative pointed out "that the Knowledge Campus Ambassador program is currently about 55% male and 45% female – a gender ratio that we are quite proud
925:
4) From the use of British spellings ("labour" etc.) in the comments above, maybe you all are talking about Knowledge editors in the UK. My opinions come from an American perspective. Your mileage may vary.
788:
volunteer demographics, we can probably learn things about the general decline in editorship by studying the groups which have the most difficulty (or are the most averse) to contributing to Knowledge.
162:
Concerns about the small proportion of women editing Knowledge have been voiced for a long time, e.g. by senior Wikimedia figures including Sue Gardner and Jimmy Wales in recent interviews. However,
922:
about another poster. Sometimes they get indignantly corrected. But to me that just indicates that we are being responded to based on the quality of our contributions, not on our (presumed) gender.
828:
encyclopedia itself. I marveled at the time how many different convoluted possibilities were put forth to explain the decline with almost nobody seeming to suggest the most obvious explanation.
538:
Knowledge is based on referring other scientific work not adding original research thus the gender ration of Wikipedians is less of an issue then the gender of those publishing/doing research.
624:
I've lost track of which women opining on all this in major media said what at this point, since so much written, and I'm still filtering through it. But there are some good examples at
178:, which is hoped to "become a space where Wikipedians and non-Wikipedians can share research and information and tactics for making Knowledge more attractive to women editors" (
73:
338:
The share of ex-contributors within 10–17 years old female Wikipedians is 3.1% and exceeds thus by far the respective share of this group in the male age cohort (2.2%). ...
664:
703:
689:
412:
641:
417:
407:
958:
660:
422:
903:
769:
67:
845:
797:
594:
493:
448:
615:
392:
120:
559:
397:
385:
167:
876:
729:
252:. (Gardner, too, had remarked in earlier interviews that women seemed more ready to volunteer for such activities when classes were asked on campus.)
975:
473:
307:
In addition, the Floatingsheep post noted a lack of information about the methodology on wikipediasurvey.org (which may be somewhat mitigated by the
836:
politically-correct thinking by overly progressive types. Nowhere in any of this do I see major progress being made. It's a severe waste of energy.
632:. Plus lots of other stuff I'll list someplace soon when catch up at it all. But just wanted to throw those two cents in since others were opining.
935:
379:
345:
religion (belief systems) and social sciences at a young age while male contributors focus on these thematic fields in the oldest age cohort. ...
52:
41:
753:
629:
530:
319:
that it was "as most surveys" subject to selection bias, but quoted an earlier, smaller survey which had given an even lower percentage: 7.3%.
1028:
174:
by Gardner on her personal blog), and a renewed discussion among Wikipedians. Much of the latter discussion took place on the newly opened
300:
267:
171:
170:) brought an enormous amount of additional attention to the topic. This attention included further international media coverage (some
453:
182:). The Gendergap mailing list discussion reached almost 200 postings within less than a week. The issue was also highlighted in a
21:
1003:
437:
998:
993:
460:
260:), and standard messages inviting people to create a user account might appear to address newbies as male too. Sue Gardner
656:
326:
of the UNU-MERIT study includes several further insights into the gender gap besides the much-quoted number, including:
988:
872:
499:
The Foundation's Data Analyst Erik Zachte has also commented about the validity of the UNU-MERIT study, according to a
585:
a structured article). If different groups of people go about this work in subtly different ways, I would welcome it.
323:
625:
207:
819:
an hypothesis that a hostile male-dominated culture is preventing female participation. Those who promote this
312:
199:
311:
about the then ongoing study). Knowledge researcher Joseph Reagle (who is currently working on the topic of
983:
551:
367:
46:
32:
17:
784:
our editorship is determined by external forces: culture, economies, governments, and other such things
214:
on the list why the Metafilter community had a more balanced gender ratio – around 60/40 male/female:
203:
555:
279:
734:
We should have been surveyed long before 2008; but Foundation never made it a high priority (see
308:
954:
868:
699:
637:
815:
who use an online resource are those who have access to computers, seems pretty logical to me.
841:
811:
765:
725:
685:
316:
303:") gives vastly different numbers for Knowledge's readers: 52 percent men, 48 percent women.
261:
250:
247:
234:
211:
191:
179:
1009:
860:
500:
175:
264:
this "awful" and "a key piece of information that is important and new (at least to me)."
8:
611:
590:
513:
257:
931:
249:
and that "a lot of our Campus Ambassadors are people who totally new to the community"
206:, who works as a full-time community manager at Metafilter and had written one of the
950:
945:
864:
746:
695:
633:
444:
296:
183:
628:
which mention actual sexism as an issue. And then there is the tremendously amusing
899:
837:
778:
761:
721:
681:
547:
793:
488:
470:
716:
607:
586:
526:
288:
1022:
927:
157:
New York Times article sparks extended discussion of Knowledge's "gender gap"
742:
895:
539:
284:
68:
Widespread discussions about the low participation of women in Knowledge
789:
481:
195:
522:
292:
150:
512:
What pointed out is that the survey had a significant problem with
735:
715:
I recommend everybody following this gender topic read the article
504:
275:
946:
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/Former_Contributors_Survey_Results
739:
afraid this is going to be the case for a while longer. Sigh. --
507:(published around the time of the publication of this article):
717:"Knowledge Is Male-Dominated. That Doesn't Mean It's Sexist."
299:
writer Anna North in her contribution to the NYT debate, "
564:
I think you have a good point there, but nonetheless:
630:
Independent article "Knowledge: This is a man's world
458:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
336:Wikipedians, and thus less likely to register. ...
626:NY Times Debate: Where are the women of wikipedia?
200:Knowledge, Snips & Snails, Sugar & Spice?
1020:
210:invited by the NYT after its initial article,
148:
461:
14:
1021:
743:Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus
51:
328:
268:Empirical basis: The UNU-MERIT study
216:
166:front-page story on January 31 (see
1029:Knowledge Signpost archives 2011-02
190:On the Gendergap list, Sue Gardner
27:
366:
186:on the Foundation's official blog.
53:
31:
28:
1040:
443:These comments are automatically
309:slides from a Wikimania 2009 talk
135:
125:
115:
105:
95:
85:
454:add the page to your watchlist
13:
1:
959:04:32, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
936:05:42, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
904:21:33, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
877:02:11, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
846:20:49, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
798:15:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
770:19:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
754:17:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
730:17:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
704:21:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
690:18:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
665:13:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
642:21:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
616:20:31, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
595:12:47, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
560:08:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
531:07:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
494:06:22, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
474:02:38, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
429:
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
322:Assuming its validity, the
10:
1045:
892:we need more good editors
168:last week's "In the news"
503:about the gender gap by
176:"Gendergap" mailing list
313:free culture and sexism
786:
451:. To follow comments,
371:
36:
782:
370:
301:The antisocial factor
35:
447:from this article's
576:Although wikipedia
514:self-selection bias
413:Features and admins
258:de:Benutzer:Example
438:Discuss this story
418:Arbitration report
408:WikiProject report
372:
208:eight commentaries
164:The New York Times
42:← Back to Contents
37:
887:having more women
880:
863:comment added by
462:purging the cache
423:Technology report
357:
356:
231:
230:
47:View Latest Issue
1036:
1012:
879:
857:
751:
749:
544:
491:
486:
465:
463:
457:
436:
390:
382:
375:
329:
304:
217:
194:a discussion on
187:
153:
139:
138:
129:
128:
119:
118:
109:
108:
99:
98:
89:
88:
59:
57:
55:
1044:
1043:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1035:
1034:
1033:
1019:
1018:
1017:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1008:
1006:
1001:
996:
991:
986:
979:
967:
966:
909:Four comments:
858:
752:
747:
741:
540:
489:
482:
467:
459:
452:
441:
440:
434:+ Add a comment
432:
428:
427:
426:
383:
380:7 February 2011
378:
376:
373:
276:UNU-MERIT study
272:
270:
198:on the topic ("
161:
159:
154:
147:
146:
145:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
86:
80:
77:
66:
62:
60:
54:7 February 2011
50:
49:
44:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1042:
1032:
1031:
1007:
1002:
997:
992:
987:
982:
981:
980:
969:
968:
965:
964:
963:
962:
961:
939:
938:
923:
919:
915:
907:
906:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
833:
829:
825:
816:
810:How about the
803:
802:
801:
800:
773:
772:
740:
713:
712:
711:
710:
709:
708:
707:
706:
672:
671:
670:
669:
668:
667:
647:
646:
645:
644:
622:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
597:
574:
519:
518:
497:
496:
442:
439:
431:
430:
425:
420:
415:
410:
405:
400:
395:
393:News and notes
389:
377:
365:
364:
363:
362:
355:
354:
351:
333:
289:selection bias
269:
266:
229:
228:
225:
221:
158:
155:
144:
143:
133:
123:
113:
103:
93:
82:
81:
78:
72:
71:
70:
69:
64:
63:
61:
58:
45:
40:
39:
30:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1041:
1030:
1027:
1026:
1024:
1011:
1005:
1000:
995:
990:
985:
977:
973:
960:
956:
952:
947:
943:
942:
941:
940:
937:
933:
929:
924:
920:
916:
914:unspecified."
912:
911:
910:
905:
901:
897:
893:
888:
883:
882:
881:
878:
874:
870:
866:
862:
847:
843:
839:
834:
830:
826:
822:
817:
813:
809:
808:
807:
806:
805:
804:
799:
795:
791:
785:
780:
777:
776:
775:
774:
771:
767:
763:
758:
757:
756:
755:
750:
744:
737:
732:
731:
727:
723:
718:
705:
701:
697:
693:
692:
691:
687:
683:
678:
677:
676:
675:
674:
673:
666:
662:
658:
657:86.143.69.142
653:
652:
651:
650:
649:
648:
643:
639:
635:
631:
627:
623:
619:
618:
617:
613:
609:
604:
596:
592:
588:
583:
579:
575:
571:
566:
565:
563:
562:
561:
557:
553:
549:
545:
543:
537:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
528:
524:
517:
515:
510:
509:
508:
506:
502:
495:
492:
487:
485:
478:
477:
476:
475:
472:
464:
455:
450:
446:
435:
424:
421:
419:
416:
414:
411:
409:
406:
404:
401:
399:
396:
394:
391:
387:
381:
374:In this issue
369:
361:
352:
350:
346:
342:
339:
334:
331:
330:
327:
325:
320:
318:
314:
310:
305:
302:
298:
294:
290:
286:
281:
277:
265:
263:
259:
253:
251:
248:
243:
239:
236:
226:
222:
219:
218:
215:
213:
209:
205:
204:Jessamyn West
201:
197:
193:
188:
185:
181:
177:
173:
169:
165:
152:
142:
134:
132:
124:
122:
114:
112:
104:
102:
94:
92:
84:
83:
75:
56:
48:
43:
34:
23:
19:
971:
951:CarolMooreDC
908:
891:
886:
865:FeatherPluma
859:— Preceding
854:
820:
812:first e-mail
783:
733:
714:
696:CarolMooreDC
634:CarolMooreDC
581:
577:
569:
541:
520:
511:
498:
483:
468:
402:
386:all comments
358:
347:
343:
340:
337:
321:
306:
271:
254:
244:
240:
233:Sue Gardner
232:
189:
163:
160:
151:Tilman Bayer
1010:Suggestions
838:Jason Quinn
779:Jason Quinn
762:Jason Quinn
722:Jason Quinn
682:Jason Quinn
445:transcluded
398:In the news
295:(quoted by
285:sample bias
192:recommended
974:. You can
970:It's your
573:sources...
471:SunCreator
403:Gender gap
196:Metafilter
172:summarized
79:Share this
74:Contribute
65:Gender gap
22:2011-02-07
1004:Subscribe
608:Ajbpearce
587:bobrayner
582:should be
542:Doc James
521:Regards,
501:blog post
449:talk page
293:Quantcast
235:concluded
212:described
1023:Category
999:Newsroom
994:Archives
972:Signpost
928:MelanieN
873:contribs
861:unsigned
824:numbers.
821:unproven
736:meta:GUS
552:contribs
505:User:WWB
121:LinkedIn
101:Facebook
20: |
976:help us
944:First,
781:wrote:
570:sources
315:) also
297:Jezebel
280:posting
278:. In a
184:posting
180:Gardner
111:Twitter
896:Ocaasi
490:(talk)
324:report
262:called
131:Reddit
91:E-mail
989:About
918:hope.
790:NeilK
748:talk
556:email
317:noted
16:<
984:Home
955:talk
932:talk
900:talk
869:talk
842:talk
794:talk
766:talk
726:talk
700:talk
686:talk
661:talk
638:talk
612:talk
591:talk
580:and
548:talk
527:talk
523:HaeB
484:Tony
202:").
141:Digg
246:of"
149:By
76:—
1025::
957:)
934:)
926:--
902:)
875:)
871:•
844:)
796:)
768:)
728:)
702:)
688:)
663:)
640:)
614:)
593:)
578:is
558:)
554:·
550:·
529:)
353:”
332:“
227:”
220:“
978:.
953:(
930:(
898:(
867:(
840:(
792:(
764:(
745:|
724:(
698:(
684:(
659:(
636:(
610:(
589:(
546:(
525:(
466:.
456:.
388:)
384:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
