So what if a 10-year-old boy gets the survey? He is definitely male, but is he a “man” or “other”?
The original survey was meant for people reading Wikipedia, not editors. Anyone under 18 was excluded from the survey.
But now children will be counted as “not men”.
Are transwomen really women? There used to be lady-boys, female impersonators, and cross-dressers, and this used to be something fun. But now gays are being told they have just been reincarnated into someone else’s body, and that being gay is a “wrong” body. But not to worry, the solution can be purchased from Big Pharma. Follow the money. Who is financing Stonewall these days?
Also Jessica Yaniv, of testicle-waxing fame (but are they or are they not lady-testicles?) has been arrested and is starting to look a bit too interested in underage girls (the Blaire interview is here). So we may see Stonewall fanboyz like Fae start backing off sometime soon. (In spite of what the Wikipediocrazies say, there are a lot of people who used to have some respect for Fae.)
Also, this does not seem right
We use Man/Woman instead of Male/Female as we are asking about gender and not sex.
Are they using the U.S. or the U.K. meaning for sex/gender?
In the U.S. “gender” is the basis for the 1964 anti-discrimination legislation, a genteel wording that was originated by the notorious RBG, back in her ACLU days.
In the U.K. women have “sex” based rights, (2004 Gender Recognition Act), that include privacy and single sex spaces.
So if they are doing a “gender” survey, they should probably get someone in there who is familiar with the territory. If you want a sample, google “women don’t have penises” or check out @Glinner on Twitter: “we told you about Mermaids & Yaniv and you called us bigots”.
In the meantime, the WMF will be counting boys and gay men as “women”. Then they can say the gender problem is solved and dissolve Trust & Safety.
[Note: this is from Wikipedia article “Andrew Chael“, published under a CC-by-SA 3.0 license. The deletion discussion is here — WP:RAPID anyone? Over 7000 people have accessed this article in less than 4 days. They obviously want information about this person. If Wikipedia doesn’t want to host this as part of their educational mission, I am happy to step into the gap.]
Andrew Chael (born 1990/1991) is an American astrophysicist and a member of the Event Horizon Telescope imaging working group and team that created the first simulated image of a black hole.
His research focuses on the simulation and imaging of black holes Sgr A* and M87.
In 2019 he became an Einstein fellow on the NASA Hubble Fellowship Program. His work as a fellow has focused on flaring black holes using a combination of simulations and images obtained by the EHT. He helped developed software to piece together using data collected within the EHT project to create the first-ever image of a black hole that simulates what scientists believe the telescope will collect to create the simulation of M87, one of the black holes the EHT has been looking at.
After the release of the image, Katie Bouman, who developed one of the algorithms used in the black hole image, and a PBS article PBS that featured Bouman, the story went viral.
In response, a number of posts on Reddit and Twitter claimed Chael was the main contributor of the project and Bouman was being pushed forward by an agenda-driven media. Chael repeatedly refuted the claims in media interviews and on social media, calling them “sexist” on a Twitter thread that also went viral. He debunked the posts using lines of code changed in the git repository to measure contributions, saying that many such lines tracked were the result of him updating model data. He added that it “was ironic that they chose me”, since, as a gay man, he was part of what he called an “underrepresented” minority in STEM. Chael further set the record straight by telling People magazine, “Our papers used three independent imaging software libraries (including one developed by my friend @sparse_k). While I wrote much of the code for one of these pipelines, Katie was a huge contributor to the software.”
In 2019, Chael won the Eric Keto Prize for the best doctorate thesis in astrophysics at Harvard.
In other years, Wikipediocracy would have been on it, but they seem to have even fewer women than usual these days, and the only two people who cared – Andreas Kolbe, because he did care, and Greg Kohs, because he wanted to embarrass the WMF over their sloppy statistical methods and extract revenge for some backroom deal over paid editing that fell through – are gone.
So what does the survey say?
Only 9% of the users are women. Compare this to 2010, when, according to Kolbe’s old piece in Wikipediocracy, “only 12.64% of contributors are female.” The report mumbles around about “we are not sure if this is due to a change in the sampling strategy”. But responsiveness or even methodology does not seem to be the WMF goal here. On the talk page someone has pinged EGalvez (WMF) with the question
“Among high activity editors, the lowest response rate was 25% from Portuguese Wikipedia while the highest was 25% from German Wikipedia.” Presumably one of those percentages is wrong? Thanks.”
The question was never answered and the apparent error remains on the page.
So the answer to participation of women remains: “Some work is needed to learn what effect this sampling change had, if any.” Well, they have the raw data, when are they going to rework it to give a meaningful comparison? IMO it has already been done, and the results are not something we will ever see made public. Instead we have ever-shifting goalposts. Participation of women is now rebranded as “diversity” and “inclusiveness”, which is in turn rebranded as age, educational level, and geographical area.
What else? Results are posted by “teams”, that is, the WMF group requesting data points on various stuff. So after clicking through the general report and reading it, you then find out you have to click on 11 different boxes to see the results for different internal WMF requestors. Here is the Support & Safety page: Community Engagement Insights/2018 Report/Support & Safety.
And what else?
“Dutch Wikipedia was lower in measurements of collaborative intent, awareness of self and others, feedback and recognition, individual commitment to diversity, and inclusive interactions.” LOL, no surprise there, just take a look at the crude, misogynist language they use over on Sucks.
“Sentiments towards a sense of belonging and having an inclusive culture in the Wikimedia community were two of the lower scores among the diversity and inclusion measures. …the average response for women in the survey was 8% lower than men…” No shit, Sherlock. If you can find any women.
“Although 54% of Wikimedians on the projects agree they are “freely able to express my thoughts without being attacked on Wikipedia”, women reported statistically significant lower scores than men.” That pretty much means that 46% do NOT feel they are freely able to express their thoughts.” But which thoughts? Don’t forget these are the same people who think a good use of their time is deliberating whether an F-bomb is sanctionable.
“Among developers, there was 20% average increase from 2017 for all measures of collaboration and engagement”. Hmm, might this be a result of the Technical Code of Conduct.
“Across Wikimedia audiences, an average of 22% felt unsafe or uncomfortable in any online or offline space in the last 12 months. In 2017, we asked the same question, but did not set a time limit of 12 months. So while it cannot be stated that harassment has decreased, we can say with some confidence that it has not worsened.” What? First, where is the survey from last year, and what were the numbers. Second, what happened to all the people who were harassed before? Did they by any chance just leave? This is like measuring unemployment statistics by counting the number of people getting unemployment compensation. You aren’t measuring the number of people who have run out of benefits, or who have stopped looking for work out of discouragement.
“Experience of harassment has not declined since 2017 and appears to remain steady“. So all those people they keep hiring to solve the harassment problem have not made any headway.
Finally this one from “Support & Safety” (isn’t it Trust and Safety?): “We still do not understand the reasons why people feel unsafe.” Well, yeah they did kinda tell you:
Except the problem is that you asked the people being harassed why they were being harassed. How can anyone be expected to speculate on someone else’s motives? You should have asked the people doing the harassing. “Have you ever done x, y, or z, if so, who and why.” And instead of this multiple-guess format, how about a space for open-ended answers.
So if you have some Native American forbears, is this a good time to talk about it? If Elizabeth Warren is any indication, probably not. In fact there has probably never been a good time to talk about it, in some quarters.
The original Pocahontas was kidnapped for ransom by the British at the age of 17. When her father refused to pay, she continued to live with the British, and became of symbol of Indian religious conversion, as she married one of the British settlers after being baptized.
The French however were more likely to intermarry: “More intermarriages took place between French settlers and Native Americans than with any other European group.”
If you really want to explore your possible Native roots, check out “How Do I Legally Prove Native American Ancestry?” by Henry Louis Gates Jr. and NEHGS Researcher Meaghan E.H. Siekman, who advise getting the DNA test before trying to trace any family history, adding that DNA has been used by some Native nations as a way to disenroll members. Some of the comments add that many are now being kicked off the rolls, and elders losing their tribal status and all benefits, after being card-carrying members for generations. Some tribes are working hard to make themselves smaller, so they can split up casino profits among as few people as possible.
So here is Elizabeth Warren’s new campaign video, that has some pics and interviews with her family about their Indian heritage.
I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that after this DNA test and video, Elizabeth Warren is never ever ever going to be a member of D.A.R.
Not quite sure what this is about (archived) or why someone would want to make sweeping generalizations about a racial or ethnic group, no matter which group, but I have been seeing this “white people” and “white women” thing more and more lately.
This is the person (board member) who just got named to the “Diversity” working group of the movement strategy process.