853:
men to contribute. I would view it as sexist to preferentially encourage women to participate. The idea that women think they "have more important things to do" than contribute to
Knowledge (mentioned again in the video by the paper's authors) comes up again and again. Clearly, this would be a fruitful idea to target in any directed advertising to women. Lastly, as Knowledge is a volunteer community, you cannot force people to be volunteers. Ultimately, you get who you get. So trying to force a 50/50 ratio is misguided. The role of the Foundation should be to make sure that Knowledge is not discriminatory. But this job is already done! I see little barrier to participation (except economic, which we have no power to fix). Therefore I find all user studies largely just mere curiosities upon which no action should usually be taken.
974:
drugs to block testosterone early enough you would be a woman, but genetically you would be the same as now (I'm assuming you're a man going by your name...). On everything else I totally agree with you, there are biochemical and psychological differences between women and men (on average!) that influence behaviour. I also agree that there is no need for a gender policy on WP; so men are more likely to edit wikipedia...who cares! I've never perceived WP as a 'boys club', and I'm free to edit as well if I like. Directed advertising would be a waste of money that could be better spent elsewhere. But I still don't like being called 'he'! ;-)
932:, please leave genetics out of the issue!..or I have to start to thinks that some editors do have a bias against women? Surely is still reality in many countries that women have to care for children, home and earn a living or at least helping with it. That leaves less time to get interested in other things like editing wikipedia (that, by the way, is getting more and more complicated - or I'm growing old...). Still, I think the research, because of the inherent difficulty in determining the gender of the editors, used far too many assumptions to be meaningful. --
869:
Case in point: Sue
Gardener's 'why women don't edit Knowledge in their own words post', where obviously ridiculous assertions were treated seriously. For perspective, think what would happen if there was a 'why men don't edit Knowledge in their own words' survey: It would be populated by Knowledge Review trolls and their insane conspiracy theories. Its no surprise that their female equivalents come out when asked, and I have to say I was not impressed when I saw our cheif executive try to cater to oprions such as
466:
117:
107:
800:
Wikipedians) male respondents? Is there any data on the gender of the respondents, and are these articles rated differently by men and women? Also, how do the quality and length of these articles scale with the total number of contributors compared to gender-neutral articles ? I suppose that articles of little interest to the majority of editors are bound to be of a lower quality simply because of the smaller editor pool they draw on, is this factored in?
1121:). Wiki Trip says that 9 registered editors are male and none are female: I have identified as female on my user page since November 2006. It also shows editors as being located solely in North America and the UK, whereas User:Grant65 is in Australia. A lot of my editing has been in military history, a subject area that might be considered more male-oriented, and I have never sensed that I have been treated differently because of my gender.
161:
90:
33:
127:
87:
137:
97:
840:
and reckless press releases and statements by the
Wikimedia Foundation, it is now in the public conscious that Knowledge has a sexist male-exclusive culture. This makes me angry! It is untrue for starters but furthermore it bothers me that the slander comes from vocal but near-sighted people working for the Foundation. As far as I can tell, the policies set forth in
1034:
much of a hassle to go read your userpage in hopes that it might identify your gender. Gender-specific usernames help (like LadyofShalott or my own), but that probably just encourages more stereotyping. I must also agree to never having viewed it as a boys club, or experiencing any type of prejudice against my gender.
959:
that actually derived from my words. A male mentioning a genetic issue as a possible factor does not imply he has a bias against women. That would be a logical fallacy. The remaining issues you mention were intended to be covered by the word "social" in my reply. I fully agree with the latter half of your message.
1086:
the level of female vandalism was as high as 6%, but it won't be 60%, that has to be a skew from women feeling the need to identify as such when almost all vandals are male. I will make enquiries on one of the wikis where it is more normal to declare gender, perhaps we can get a more sensible figure there.
874:"Administrators will block any woman on wikipedia if they do not reval themselfs as woman. There are too many males who will stick to âthere are no women on the internetâ phrase. If you want a place where you can make changes with out being forced to reveal your idenity, wikipedia is not the place for it."
1085:
I used to buy into the argument that vandalism was an almost invariably male thing, like graffiti it is adolescent male misbehaviour. However I've since met a former vandal at one of our meetups, and seen some vandalisms that were probably girl on girl cyberbullying. So it wouldn't now surprise me if
1033:
One of the gender-identification problems is that it is not easy to find out the gender of a user, particularly within a discussion. Rainbowwrasse, I can scroll over your username to find out how long you've been here and how many edits you have, but not your gender. Most of the time, it would be too
973:
Jason, I wouldn't invoke genetics simply because there are no genetic differences between women and men (except of course for the little Y with only 80-ish genes for testes and suchlike). The only difference is how and when these genes are expressed, but that isn't genetics. If you had started taking
228:
The study confined itself to editors who self-disclosed their gender via a userbox on their user pages or through their user preferences. As the paper notes, this may have introduced a bias, and the gender as self-reported by users (and in particular vandal accounts) may not always reflect the truth.
903:
Whether if is politically correct or not, genetics may be a fundamental factor involved in the gender imbalance at
Knowledge. Genetics is a big factor in determining behavior; so I do not consider it rational to turn a blind eye to what is perhaps a major part of the "answer" to the gender imbalance
868:
Bleh... lets not pull out the genetics card here, that is just stupid. I do agree though that due to incompetence on the foundations part and certain social elements within
Knowledge the issue has been twisted and news outlets have run away with a completely ridiculous perception of the whole thing.
852:
make
Knowledge a sex-equal environment. End of story. If women are not choosing to participate â and they clearly aren't at the same rate as men â that is a different issue. I encourage the Foundation to advertise with directed marketing to women... so long as there's equal directed marketing asking
839:
explain the imbalance. Unfortunately, this research (which, upon my quick reading, seemed to throw in occasional unwarranted conclusions extrapolated from their data) is going to be interpreted to spearhead policy changes to combat non-existent gender discrimination. Thanks in large part to careless
344:
The hypothesis that the "coverage of topics with particular interest to females is inferior to topics with particular interest to males" was also confirmed in a second test â the only one in the paper that did not rely on
Wikipedians' self-reported gender: using data on the gender of movie raters on
1052:
What does THAT mean? That is about ten times higher than I would have predicted. Starting out with goofy test edits maybe? But why women... There's something really interesting at work here that's causing this gender imbalance and I don't think the sometimes rough-and-tumble deletion and reversion
958:
You have a confusing question mark in your comment so it's hard to know if you are being serious or sarcastic. I assume you are serious and you wanted a period there. I will not leave genetics out of the issue. See comment above. If you wish to reply to my comments, I ask that you draw conclusions
608:
I'm a woman and have self-identified as such on my userpage for nearly five years, but even after all this time other users still refer to me as "he" or "him" fairly regularly. That might come from an implicit just-us-guys-here assumption without having looked at my userpage, or maybe refering to
799:
I can't access the file, but I was wondering if there was any more data on the quality of articles on films of more interest to women. If they were rated less highly by WikiProject Film, does that reflect the preferences (in terms of style and content, not subject) of the presumably mostly (being
531:
834:
I cannot state emphatically enough that even if participation at
Knowledge between genders is not equal, that it does not mean anything is wrong with the community or current policies. There are other factors at work (genetic, social, and so forth) that could
609:
anyone as "she" or "her" is too easily construed as an insult (!) ... I wonder whether specifying female in my user preference "used for gender-correct addressing by the software" will make next year's projections more accurate by one data point ;P â
340:
Articles where the percentage of female contributors was higher than average tended to be shorter than articles where the percentage of male contributors was higher than average; articles where the gender ratio was closest to the site average were the
110:
416:" displays the gender of the contributors to a specific Knowledge article, as well as their geographic provenance â restricted to those edits where such information is available, as in the University of Minnesota study. Examples:
1112:
Interesting observations, but I wouldn't sign up to anything that calls me a 'chick', thanks. I wonder whether Wiki Trip is that accurate? I checked out an article I created and to which I have been the major contributor,
349:
site, the researchers found that when controlling for some other factors, "articles about 'female' movies are shorter than ones about 'male' movies", and also received a lower quality rating in WikiProject Film's article
164:
WikiChix group photo: every year women involved in
Wikimedia projects come together for lunch at Wikimania, generating passionate and lively discussion about women's roles within Wikimedia; see "Brief news"
130:
766:& set format to word-wrap. Then search for the words "invite" or "this epiphany" at the top of the post, where she repeats how simply asking people, directly, can make a big difference in responses. -
100:
140:
246:
1150:
Hi! I'm one of WikiTrip developers. Yes, WikiTrip takes information that's listed on the "User profile" under "Preferences". If you have questions or suggestions, I'll be happy to answer them! --
204:) and sought a more data-driven analysis of the issue, as opposed to the by now traditional "here is a random 'male'-article, here is a 'female'-article, they are different lengths" approach.
1102:
1017:
983:
546:
723:
197:
881:
And then there was Mr. Wales who in his recent interview at
Wikimania was basically like 'we need more women because right now all our editors are pathetic nerds', thanks Jimbo.
73:
1062:
736:
913:
892:
652:
1080:
826:
770:
1183:
968:
668:
631:
1167:
1145:
941:
120:
1159:
602:
515:
505:
520:
241:
9% of edits from the 2009 cohort are made by accounts belonging to women. A chart plotting gender ration over edit count (similar to one published previously in the
510:
1071:
I highly suspect that it's common for male vandals to create female vandal accounts. Unless that could be corrected, the statistics above is probably misleading.
1042:
406:
inaugurated in February, there were 105 postings in May, 46 in June, 36 in July, and only 5 so far this month. Interested users are encouraged to become involved.
809:
862:
495:
756:
701:
687:
616:
1130:
793:
1179:
500:
483:
221:
592:
201:
365:
Women are more likely to be reverted when they have very few edits (7% vs 5%); however, in accounts with more than eight edits, the effect disappears.
1197:
477:
52:
41:
1250:
933:
818:
551:
692:
Regarding the comment: "Women are more likely to vandalize as new users", can we trust that vandals are reporting their gender properly?
817:
I wonder who decide that women must have different interests from men. If I don't have any interest in Sex and the City I count as man?--
436:, one of the "lengthy articles on something boys might favor", 6% of the editors are estimated to have been female. A few other results:
353:
Women are more likely to edit userpages and user talk pages than men, and men are more likely to edit articles and all other namespaces.
558:
764:
Whenever text is forced off-screen, try expanding the window to full-screen size, or else, get the raw markup text by <View: -->
875:
21:
744:
I tried to read Stierch's blog post, but the text was forced off the screen to the right, and there was no scrollbar. Advice? --
1225:
535:
371:
Women and men were blocked at essentially the same rate (4.39% of female users and 4.52% of male users have ever been blocked).
1220:
1215:
707:
No, we sure can not. Probably that whole list should have been phrased something like "Those who identified as female..."
675:
598:
Oddly enough the disparity is even greater in the other direction if you look at the Japanese Knowledge article. Hmm.
186:, was posted online on August 11. The team of seven researchers became interested in the imbalance after the January 31
1210:
622:
I've gotten the impression that some people think that identifying me as a female will be received as an insult. --
67:
1136:
I bet that WikiTrip bases its judgments on the gender that's listed on the "User profile" under "Preferences". --
454:
1205:
1050:
Women are more likely to vandalize as new users (60% of vandal accounts reporting their gender were women).
465:
385:
362:
Women are more likely to vandalize as new users (60% of vandal accounts reporting their gender were women).
46:
32:
17:
1093:
659:
If you edit woman-centric articles though, you will be assumed a "she" as Kaldari and I can attest to. --
583:, edits from one of the two countries involved outweigh those from the other by more than 60:1. Regards,
784:(an organization that provides services primarily to women) -- 522 edits by men vs. only 11 by women. --
447:
440:
208:
212:
979:
805:
717:
646:
568:
183:
429:
249:") further shows that "the gender gap is more pronounced when looking at high-activity editors".
1088:
782:
575:
219:
summaries from the university, the paper has been widely covered by external media sourcesâsee
1174:
because it's against Knowledge privacy policies. We trace only anonymous edits trough geoip.
1076:
1013:
964:
909:
888:
858:
581:
1231:
751:
697:
683:
417:
8:
1036:
613:
169:
393:
1126:
975:
849:
801:
779:
709:
638:
572:
674:
Calling female Knowledge editors chicken or chix will surely help. To your attention:
1114:
1058:
767:
542:
451:
389:
375:
1155:
1141:
1072:
1009:
960:
929:
905:
854:
845:
789:
664:
627:
578:
238:
16% of Knowledge accounts created in 2009 (who state their gender) belong to women.
937:
841:
822:
745:
731:
693:
679:
567:
The "Wiki Trip" tool also provides food for thought on other aspects of possible
359:
Women are more likely to become administrators than men with similar edit counts.
1166:
I'm the main WikiTrip devloper. It doesn't count your edits as a female because
636:
I've been addressed as "sir" (granted, it was not by a native English speaker).
424:
mentioned above, as an example of a poorly developed article on a "teenage girls
884:
610:
588:
433:
188:
216:
1244:
1122:
599:
150:
1175:
1171:
1118:
1054:
403:
1151:
1137:
785:
660:
623:
778:
Personal benefit apparently isn't the only driver of edits. I checked
384:: A write-up of the WikiChix lunch at Wikimania has been published at
252:
The gender gap has not changed significantly over the past five years.
584:
346:
154:
413:
175:
160:
444:
356:
Women are more likely to seek adoption in the adopt-a-user program.
255:
There were significant differences in gender ratio by subject area,
368:
Women are no more likely to leave after being reverted than men.
437:
392:, who also blogged about an "epiphany" she had at the event: "
176:"WP:Clubhouse? An exploration of Knowledgeâs gender imbalance"
1008:
I think we agree barring a few minor semantic differences.
410:
New tool analyzes article contributors' gender and location
1117:, (I have made 344 edits; the next highest count is 16 by
192:
front-page article on Knowledge's gender gap (see earlier
1170:(or maybe you didn't do it on enwiki). It doesn't locate
728:
We tried to do that in the third paragraph of the lead.
556:If your comment has not appeared here, you can try
676:User_talk:Sue_Gardner#May_I_ask_you_a_courtesy.3F
1242:
148:
1048:I went into WTF?!?!? mode when I read this:
159:
559:
394:Sometimes all it takes is an invitation
247:Knowledge's gender gap examined further
14:
1243:
1053:fights fully explain what's going on.
51:
1251:Knowledge Signpost archives 2011-08
27:
464:
400:Gender-gap mailing list stagnating
53:
31:
28:
1262:
541:These comments are automatically
178:, to be presented next month at
135:
125:
115:
105:
95:
85:
1184:15:48, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
1160:08:30, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
552:add the page to your watchlist
13:
1:
527:
386:outreach:WikiChix Lunch 2011
18:Knowledge:Knowledge Signpost
7:
1146:20:53, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
1131:17:10, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
1103:07:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
1081:17:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
1063:04:11, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
1043:20:13, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
1018:17:06, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
984:19:34, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
969:18:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
942:17:32, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
914:18:08, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
893:17:05, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
863:16:14, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
827:16:03, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
810:08:55, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
794:22:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
771:16:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)
757:17:10, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
737:01:30, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
724:01:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
702:16:44, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
688:15:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
669:03:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
653:01:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
632:22:12, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
617:11:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
603:20:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
593:10:31, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
268:Percentage of women editing
261:
10:
1267:
1168:you didn't set your gender
420:, used in the article in
571:. For example, in both
404:Gender gap mailing list
184:University of Minnesota
1198:looking for new talent
878:
549:. To follow comments,
469:
428:" topic, has received
166:
68:New research, WikiChix
36:
872:
468:
412:: A new tool called "
382:WikiChix at Wikimania
163:
35:
545:from this article's
418:Friendship bracelets
491:Women and Knowledge
402:: On the Wikimedia
182:by a team from the
65:Women and Knowledge
780:Planned Parenthood
573:Battle of Iwo Jima
536:Discuss this story
516:Arbitration report
506:WikiProject report
470:
432:edits, whereas in
422:The New York Times
167:
42:â Back to Contents
37:
1115:Batu Lintang camp
735:
560:purging the cache
521:Technology report
452:Twilight (series)
337:
336:
207:Accompanied by a
47:View Latest Issue
1258:
1234:
1100:
1096:
1091:
1041:
1039:
754:
748:
729:
722:
720:
716:
712:
651:
649:
645:
641:
579:Battle of Midway
563:
561:
555:
534:
511:Featured content
488:
480:
473:
427:
259:
258:
157:
139:
138:
129:
128:
119:
118:
109:
108:
99:
98:
89:
88:
59:
57:
55:
1266:
1265:
1261:
1260:
1259:
1257:
1256:
1255:
1241:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1237:
1236:
1235:
1230:
1228:
1223:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1201:
1190:
1189:
1098:
1094:
1089:
1037:
1035:
765:<Source: -->
752:
746:
718:
714:
710:
708:
647:
643:
639:
637:
565:
557:
550:
539:
538:
532:+ Add a comment
530:
526:
525:
524:
481:
476:
474:
471:
425:
378:
174:A paper titled
172:
158:
147:
146:
145:
136:
126:
116:
106:
96:
86:
80:
77:
66:
62:
60:
50:
49:
44:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1264:
1254:
1253:
1229:
1224:
1219:
1214:
1209:
1204:
1203:
1202:
1192:
1191:
1188:
1187:
1186:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1066:
1065:
1038:PrincessofLlyr
1031:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1027:
1026:
1025:
1024:
1023:
1022:
1021:
1020:
995:
994:
993:
992:
991:
990:
989:
988:
987:
986:
949:
948:
947:
946:
945:
944:
921:
920:
919:
918:
917:
916:
896:
895:
882:
879:
870:
832:
831:
830:
829:
776:
775:
774:
773:
742:
741:
740:
739:
672:
671:
657:
656:
655:
606:
605:
540:
537:
529:
528:
523:
518:
513:
508:
503:
498:
496:News and notes
493:
487:
478:15 August 2011
475:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
434:baseball cards
407:
397:
388:by Wikimedian
377:
374:
373:
372:
369:
366:
363:
360:
357:
354:
351:
342:
335:
334:
331:
327:
326:
323:
319:
318:
315:
311:
310:
307:
303:
302:
299:
295:
294:
291:
287:
286:
283:
279:
278:
275:
271:
270:
265:
257:
256:
253:
250:
239:
235:
234:
189:New York Times
171:
168:
144:
143:
133:
123:
113:
103:
93:
82:
81:
78:
72:
71:
70:
69:
64:
63:
61:
58:
54:15 August 2011
45:
40:
39:
30:
29:
15:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1263:
1252:
1249:
1248:
1246:
1233:
1227:
1222:
1217:
1212:
1207:
1199:
1195:
1185:
1181:
1177:
1173:
1169:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1153:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1135:
1134:
1133:
1132:
1128:
1124:
1120:
1116:
1104:
1101:
1097:
1092:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1078:
1074:
1070:
1069:
1068:
1067:
1064:
1060:
1056:
1051:
1047:
1046:
1045:
1044:
1040:
1019:
1015:
1011:
1007:
1006:
1005:
1004:
1003:
1002:
1001:
1000:
999:
998:
997:
996:
985:
981:
977:
976:Rainbowwrasse
972:
971:
970:
966:
962:
957:
956:
955:
954:
953:
952:
951:
950:
943:
939:
935:
931:
927:
926:
925:
924:
923:
922:
915:
911:
907:
902:
901:
900:
899:
898:
897:
894:
890:
886:
883:
880:
877:
876:
871:
867:
866:
865:
864:
860:
856:
851:
847:
843:
838:
828:
824:
820:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
811:
807:
803:
802:Rainbowwrasse
797:
795:
791:
787:
783:
781:
772:
769:
763:
762:
761:
760:
759:
758:
755:
749:
738:
734:
733:
727:
726:
725:
721:
713:
706:
705:
704:
703:
699:
695:
690:
689:
685:
681:
677:
670:
666:
662:
658:
654:
650:
642:
635:
634:
633:
629:
625:
621:
620:
619:
618:
615:
612:
604:
601:
597:
596:
595:
594:
590:
586:
582:
580:
576:
574:
570:
569:systemic bias
562:
553:
548:
544:
533:
522:
519:
517:
514:
512:
509:
507:
504:
502:
499:
497:
494:
492:
489:
485:
479:
472:In this issue
467:
456:
453:
449:
446:
442:
439:
435:
431:
423:
419:
415:
411:
408:
405:
401:
398:
395:
391:
390:Sarah Stierch
387:
383:
380:
379:
370:
367:
364:
361:
358:
355:
352:
348:
343:
339:
338:
332:
329:
328:
324:
321:
320:
316:
313:
312:
308:
305:
304:
300:
297:
296:
292:
289:
288:
284:
281:
280:
276:
273:
272:
269:
266:
264:
260:
254:
251:
248:
244:
240:
237:
236:
232:
231:
230:
226:
224:
223:
218:
214:
210:
209:press release
205:
203:
199:
195:
191:
190:
185:
181:
177:
162:
156:
152:
142:
134:
132:
124:
122:
114:
112:
104:
102:
94:
92:
84:
83:
75:
56:
48:
43:
34:
23:
19:
1194:The Signpost
1193:
1172:User:Grant65
1119:User:Grant65
1111:
1087:
1049:
1032:
873:
836:
833:
798:
777:
743:
730:
691:
673:
607:
566:
490:
484:all comments
421:
409:
399:
381:
267:
262:
242:
227:
220:
206:
193:
187:
180:WikiSym 2011
179:
173:
170:New research
155:Tilman Bayer
1232:Suggestions
1073:Jason Quinn
1010:Jason Quinn
961:Jason Quinn
930:Jason Quinn
906:Jason Quinn
904:"problem".
855:Jason Quinn
850:WP:PERSONAL
747:Orange Mike
678:. Regards,
543:transcluded
501:In the news
350:assessment.
222:In the news
694:GoingBatty
680:Catfisheye
455:55% female
376:Brief news
345:their own
290:Philosophy
202:February 7
198:January 31
196:coverage:
79:Share this
74:Contribute
22:2011-08-15
1226:Subscribe
885:extransit
846:WP:HARASS
611:Athaenara
547:talk page
430:100% male
414:Wiki Trip
347:MovieLens
330:Geography
1245:Category
1221:Newsroom
1216:Archives
1123:Jasper33
1099:Chequers
842:WP:CIVIL
732:jorgenev
448:91% male
445:feminism
441:98% male
341:longest.
298:Religion
243:Signpost
233:Findings
194:Signpost
151:Jorgenev
121:LinkedIn
101:Facebook
20: |
1176:Fox1991
1055:Carrite
768:Wikid77
719:Shalott
648:Shalott
322:Science
314:History
111:Twitter
1152:phauly
1138:Orlady
848:, and
786:Orlady
661:Danger
624:Orlady
600:Powers
438:NASCAR
306:Health
274:People
165:below.
131:Reddit
91:E-mail
1211:About
1095:Spiel
837:fully
285:10.4%
277:10.7%
217:video
213:audio
16:<
1206:Home
1180:talk
1156:talk
1142:talk
1127:talk
1090:Ϣere
1077:talk
1059:talk
1014:talk
980:talk
965:talk
938:talk
934:Dia^
910:talk
889:talk
859:talk
823:talk
819:Dia^
806:talk
790:talk
753:Talk
711:Lady
698:talk
684:talk
665:talk
640:Lady
628:talk
589:talk
585:HaeB
577:and
333:3.7%
325:5.2%
317:6.7%
309:7.1%
301:7.1%
293:8.3%
282:Arts
263:Area
211:and
153:and
141:Digg
1196:is
750:|
245:: "
149:By
76:â
1247::
1182:)
1158:)
1144:)
1129:)
1079:)
1061:)
1016:)
982:)
967:)
940:)
912:)
891:)
861:)
844:,
825:)
808:)
796:Ç
792:)
715:of
700:)
686:)
667:)
644:of
630:)
614:â
591:)
450:,
443:,
396:".
225:.
200:,
1200:.
1178:(
1154:(
1140:(
1125:(
1075:(
1057:(
1012:(
978:(
963:(
936:(
928:@
908:(
887:(
857:(
821:(
804:(
788:(
696:(
682:(
663:(
626:(
587:(
564:.
554:.
486:)
482:(
457:.
426:'
215:/
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
