Open main menu
(Older stuff is in revision history.)

Sex/gender numbersEdit

I just wanted to note this here since the subject came up. Risker said "[Another complete aside, it seems that the software that estimates number/percentage of female editors uses this preference, and counts "gender neutral" as male.] " So yeah, that would definitely skew the results, and it seems like the software is deliberately skewing the results. If you don't tell them your gender, you must be male. Right. Reminds me of the logic used if someone gets up and says something, and then says "95% of you did not stand up and shout in opposition, so therefore 95% agree with me." Enigmamsg 21:12, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Doing something like that with software on usernames or the gender preference userbox sounds really stupid. But there are some reasonable ways to get statistics. One is to look at meetup participation. Another could be to privately survey contributors online or by email. E.g. put something where they usually put those fundraising banners asking the person to click on their gender and assure them credibly (though maybe the WMF has blown its credibility by now) that the info will be aggregated and totally anonymized (never kept associated with any other info about the individual editor). The gender-identification userbox but that is nowhere near anonymous enough. (talk) 21:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Many people do adopt personas of a different gender online, for reasons including safety. And I don't trust the WMF enough to e-mail them back, no! I'm now regretting responding to any of their surveys. I didn't realize they made ongoing use of algorithms to guess people's genders, but I should have known. The thing that made me post, however, is that meetups are a terrible way to assess gender percentages. Women are much more likely to find them intimidating (often with justifiable fear of consequences from revealing their real identity; I can't say this enough, and it goes for LGBTQ and politically dissident people too) and are also more likely to be too damned busy to shlep in to some meeting. Yngvadottir (talk) 05:02, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Yep. I thought about suggesting a meetup today for people in the Bay area to picket and leaflet around the WMF SF office during the board meeting. But I felt too busy to shlep in ;-). What happens if you email them though? As an admin didn't you already have to register an email address with them, so they already know it? At this point though, yes, distrust is appropriate. Point taken about LGBTQ. That has to be a significant issue in some places. I'm used to being in a region where it's less of one. (talk) 05:17, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Not sure why you'd have bothered to show up at the SF office, the Board meeting would have (in all likelihood) been online. They met in person in Berlin in March and will meet in person in Stockholm in August, and usually the meetings in between are online. I don't think that people realize only about half of the WMF staff work out of the office; about 30% of them live outside of the US and work remotely (they're the ones marked "contractor" on the staff list), and several of the senior leaders as well as about 30% of the rest of the US-based staff work remotely most of the time. Risker (talk) 16:45, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, SF is convenient for me to get to, and I didn't realize the board meeting would be virtual rather than in person. Of course a worldwide protest would be even better than only doing it in SF. It didn't particularly have to coincide with the board meeting but doing so helps identify the target. Can you imagine the board members looking out the window of the WMF penthouse and seeing 1000s of protesters marching around with signs saying "unblock Fram!"? Ok, I can't either ;). (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
And some of our editors have to be very careful because of political laws where they live. No, admins don't have to identify to the WMF: the level above that, the "functionaries", do, starting with ArbCom, checkusers, OTRS(?) ... In theory they run password crackers on admins, but they don't have the automatic right to see admins' IPs: normal checkuser rules apply.
I would have been working or sleeping, story of my life with regards to meetings at normal hours. I would have to call in "sick" to get paid in order to go to any meetup. Applies to many folks, I imagine, though my schedule is more exotic than most. Yngvadottir (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually, *nobody* outside of the very few volunteers with fiduciary duties (i.e., the Board of Trustees, the FDC, and probably the Audit Committee) need to provide proof of identity to the WMF. Functionaries (oversighters, stewards, checkusers, arbitrators) need to sign off on a confidentiality agreement using their username and a special set-up in phabricator; they stopped asking for our ID a long time ago, when they updated the privacy policy. On the other hand, admins who don't attach an email to their Wikimedia account are unlikely to get their account back if it gets hijacked. Risker (talk) 16:57, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I thought there was a de facto requirement (by observed practice at RFA if not by some codified policy) that admins had to have working email-this-user links. Maybe I'm mistaken though. (talk) 21:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I remember reading that it has been a requirement for years but that some admins who gained the mop in the early days (maybe 2005 and earlier? Just a guess) did not have it because it was not a requirement back then. Enigmamsg 14:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I did wonder about your work schedule when you posted early yesterday morning that you had just gotten back from work! This probably isn't the right place to ask what you do though. Right, I knew admins don't have to supply real names, but I thought they had to supply a working email address, with anonymous addresses allowed. So that's the type of address I'd have used.

Those political laws affect readers and not just editors! We're currently blocked in Turkey and China, and it's a safe bet that everyone's reading in places like that is monitored (the https encryption helps but only slightly[1]). Another example of the WMF losing its way. I brought this up with Jimbo once and he brushed it off. I'll make a longer post about this one of these days. (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia cartoonEdit

I made this, tell me what you think and any suggestions

Afootpluto (talk) 18:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Wow, thanks! My one suggestion is make the T&S team label bigger so it's readable in thumbnail size. It doesn't have to be written directly on the hand. It can be on the background with an arrow pointing to the hand, or something like that. Unfortunately I'm not artistic at all, even at the level of being able to describe something like that.
Actually (though, your judgment is probably better than mine about this), I wonder if the firecrackers could stick out on the right a little more, so it's more similar to the left (i.e. the globe is centered on them), and they could possibly be redder instead of orange (not sure of that though). Anyway, thanks again! (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Added: the label should say "WMF T&S Team" to be easier to understand, if that's ok with you. Without WMF it might be hard to figure out. (talk) 22:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Here is the new version Afootpluto (talk) 00:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks!!! (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I had to change it due to licensing of the images Afootpluto (talk) 08:17, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
This version is great. Thanks so much. (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Due to travel I won't be editing from this address for a while, starting in a few hours. I may be online from other addresses. (talk) 22:35, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm back for now though I've taken a break from this dreary subject and am dreading looking into whatever the current developments are. Sigh. (talk) 23:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "".