Grants talk:IEG/WIGI: Wikipedia Gender Index
I've come to think that some of the problem with readers thinking that wikipedia has few or poorer biographies of women has to do with how well linked the articles are. Poor linkage would, I presume, come about because the people contributing the articles may be less wiki-savvy than the archetypical nerdy male contributor, even if the article is quite long and well researched. Perhaps the researchers might like to think about counting incoming and outgoing links on the articles about people of different genders. Sminthopsis84 (talk) 05:16, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I see this project as good visual talking point for discussions like this. We could include the level of fidelity or linkages of individual articles as a factor to measure. Example of another thing I personally like to know or see: the ratio of self-reported male/female/unknown authors under male biographies, female biographies, and in non-biographical articles. The ensuing conversation or thought that comes to mind is: Must women always write about women? What if there is a trend in women writing about more abstract concepts and men more interested in writing about the lives of notable strangers do not care to include women?
- In addition to addressing self-reporting biases, I think these index tools brings further understanding about the nature of female representation in Wikipedia. Whether the solution is more about inspiring women to write, inspiring men to care or write about women, catering to female writers, or something else is something else to discern and should be based in the actual research available. Further analysis of the information and then re-clarifying the main takeaways will make it easier for Helium and others to understand at a glance what is important and why. Frances Soong (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
For me (with fine eyes) the 6 color codes (see the 6 example squares) seem to run from medium to light to medium to dark of the same color. #1 and #4 and furthrr #2 and #3 are indistinguishable for me.
"The solution to understand the trend of editorship is to focus on a proxy, the trend of gender in biography articles."
I question whether gender ratio in biography articles would actually work as a proxy for editor ratio. Certainly they're probably correlated, but I question the level of predictive power here. For one, biography articles are often historical, and their notability may reflect attitudes about gender diversity during the time that they lived. More generally speaking, gender biographical ratios may reflect current attitudes about gender diversity in general; the correlation between attitudes towards gender diversity and gender itself may also be relatively weak. And while women may be more likely to edit articles about other women, I suspect this correlation is also somewhat weak.
I'm not saying this is not worth pursuing, but if your aim to is to actually provide a proxy for the editing gender ratio, then I'd like to some justification of this claim.
@QEDK, Piotrus, Hargup, A li cor, Masssly, and Komchi: @Frances Soong:, I have made a rough draft of a complete IEG proposal. Please review, correct spelling and grammar, add any points you think are important. For those that have signed up to develop and research I would love to have you as part of the team if this was accepted and split the budget with you as much as fairly as possible. So if you think the budget needs adjusting too, please do so. Deadline is March 29th, so I'll probably be back to put on finishing touches in 4-5 days. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:27, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
Timeline of the ProjectEdit
10,000 dollars for web design feels like a very large amount of overkill. We can trivially host it on Labs using a dynamic shiny application like this one; I'll put it together for free. Ironholds (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Eligibility confirmed, Inspire CampaignEdit
This Inspire Grant proposal is under review!
We've confirmed your proposal is eligible for the Inspire Campaign review. Please feel free to ask questions and make changes to this proposal as discussions continue during this community comments period.
The committee's formal review begins on 6 April 2015, and grants will be announced at the end of April. See the schedule for more details.
Questions? Contact us at grants(at)wikimedia.org.
feedback and comments from ThepwncoEdit
@Maximilianklein: hello and congrats on your grant proposal being confirmed as eligible for review! I wonder if you could please elaborate on the budget - specifically, how you arrived at your estimates. I'm also curious if you already have an idea of the team who would work on this project (i.e. the developers, project managers, community mangers listed under budget)? cheers. -Thepwnco (talk) 20:29, 5 April 2015 (UTC)
- @Thepwnco, Superzerocool, and QEDK:, I have made a complete budget breakdown now, thanks for giving me some advice. I'm still happy to take advice on the budget details. Maximilianklein (talk) 23:47, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Comments from SuperzerocoolEdit
Hi @Maximilianklein:, the idea is wonderful and your paper it is a great plus to consider when we will evaluate your proposal. As Thepwnco said, I like to see a budget more realistic (or grouped by item: personnel, development, analysis, etc.). Regards Superzerocool (talk) 17:34, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
Final Budget AdjustmentsEdit
@Siko (WMF):, cut $2,500 out of the Research section. I think we miscommunicated a bit about the Report. The "report" is more along the lines of an statistical academic paper reporting the validity of the project as an observational experiment. It should also serve as a guideline for other researchers on how to correctly use our data. Thanks again, I think we have a very lean and efficient budget now. Maximilianklein (talk) 05:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Aggregated feedback from the committee for Wikipedia Gender IndexEdit
|(A) Impact potential
|(B) Community engagement
|(C) Ability to execute
|(D) Measures of success
|Additional comments from the Committee:
Inspire funding decisionEdit
Congratulations! Your proposal has been selected for an Individual Engagement Grant.
The committee has recommended this proposal and WMF has approved funding for the full amount of your request, $22,500
Comments regarding this decision:
We appreciate the updates made to the plan and budget so far in response to feedback. Confirming here that exact amounts to be paid to each contributing team member will be tracked and distributed by the primary grantee, so we’ll approve the overall 3 buckets as-is for the time being. We’re looking forward to partnering with you as you carry this project forward.
- You will be contacted to sign a grant agreement and setup a monthly check-in schedule.
- Review the information for grantees.
- Use the new buttons on your original proposal to create your project pages.
- Start work on your project!