Research talk:Communicating on Wikipedia while female

Naming names

Thank you Laura for doing some quite interesting research here. I would like to ask, however, that you consider either redacting the name of the editor who is identified in one of the quotes in the presentation, or seeking to find a different but similarly relevant quote that does not involve the naming of an editor. Our research does not normally name individual editors whose actions are included in the research (in fact, it normally eschews identifying specific editors without their direct permission), and in this particular case it is the user's "real name" so thus would show up in any search engine results relating to him. Thank you. Risker (talk) 19:56, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I see a few redaction, but in one case it's not clear it's a name and in this case not clear what it's supposed to be: Women like a bad ass [redacted]. Maybe fix it to "name redacted" or "slur redacted" (Or whatever it is that's redacted second time.) Thanks. Carolmooredc (talk) 13:48, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Stewards

There are no stewards on English Wikipedia. The "steward" permission is a global one, which is elected at Meta, the global/inter-project communication hub. Risker (talk) 20:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Unacceptable

"In none of these cases were the users blocked." - Unbelievable. Unacceptable. --Oop (talk) 22:49, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm a bit too burned out to read in detail but the goal of showing how difficult it is to edit as a female is a good one. Bantering with well known slur terms against women and then punishing women who object is one of the most overt forms of sexism, second only to asking for sexual favors on Wikipedia. (And someone probably could make a database on that one.) At some point I will write a review/summary for my personal web page critique of the gender gap on Wikipedia. Carolmooredc (talk) 16:05, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Ducks?

"There are words that signal awareness and defense of criticism of the use of the word like sexist, UK and duck, and the sexually vulgar words are less commonly used." What do ducks have to do with criticism of gendered insults? I'm confused. I'd guess this is a typo for "fuck", but switching that in doesn't make it make much more sense, either. Fluffernutter (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Sampling method

I don't really understand the validity of the sampling method that was used. How valid is it if we bear in mind the recent massive increase is usage of one particular word in a use-mention context, mostly by people who claim to be offended by it? Have you had any higher-level statistical training, Laura, or should we be asking for a method review?

And how many of those words really do relate to the title of the paper, ie: are gender-specific. - Sitush (talk) 09:56, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Anecdotal evidence

What is the anecdotal evidence? The references pretty much just explain the function of DRN etc. Who provided the anecdotes? How many different people did the challenging? Have the anecdotes been analysed at all or just accepted "from the horse's mouth"? Given that Wikipedia is at least supposed to be collaborative, what is the significance of "Confrontation does not appear to be a solution that is working for women." ? - Sitush (talk) 10:07, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Really?

"Context also makes clear that the word, even when targeted at male contributors, is intended to imply that a person is not wanted in the community because they have female characteristics. In some ways, the word is a greater issue when it is used by males and used to insult males as it sends a subliminal message that being female is an undesirable characteristic when it comes to contributing to Wikipedia."

I give up, sorry. There seems to be no evidence presented for this except (presumably) the writer's own prejudices. - Sitush (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Word clouds

The word clouds clearly seem sensationalized and wrong. Where are words like dumbfuck, shithead, asshole, retard, moron, ad infinitum and ad nauseum? Instead we have CUNT in 182 point type and other words in itty bitty type. Pretty clearly an example of GIGO or fabricated with shock-value intent. Other than that, an interesting read. Carrite (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Further comment

dick, prick, peckerhead, etc. etc. are also "gendered insults" but not a word is spent here explaining why such things do not affect male editing rates while equivalent and comparable terms are professed to be catastrophic on female editing rates. I contend that the fixation on civility is misplaced, that there are other larger factors which are driving the disparity in the female:male editing ratio at Wikipedia. Carrite (talk) 15:49, 26 November 2014 (UTC)