Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2012-06-04/Special report

Discuss this story

While I know it's hard to get the right wording for these things, I don't think "female and transgendered Wikimedia editors" is quite right--it unfortunately implies that transgendered editors are not female editors. Perhaps simply saying "female" is better? That avoids the issue entirely, seeing as transgendered women already consider themselves to be in that category. An otherwise excellent article, which I won't burden with my own opinion on gender discrimination. ;p Knight of Truth (talk) 15:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed - it comes across as extremely pointed editorialising from whoever wrote this. Suggest "female (including transgendered)". If the writer doesn't consider this accurate, I await the detailed explanation - David Gerard (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Twenty female Wikimedia editors, including those who self-identify as female," - Preferable? Or perhaps nix the whole clause. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - I stand by my original suggestion of "female" being the simplest and option, and the one least likely to raise any eyebrows. Unless you want to make the specific point that there were transgendered people attending, of course. Knight of Truth (talk) 15:43, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - I was worried it may be seen negatively if we did not mention it. Just going with "female" would be in line with the current revision of the Meta page. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        I can understand the concern, but I don't think people would be negative about it. People who believe that transgendered women are indeed women should have no problem with the word "women"; if anything a lack of special treatment is more equitable. People who disagree should have no trouble with transgendered people not being mentioned specifically. I imagine the group of Signpost readers who does not believe transgendered women are included in the term "women" and who would insist they be mentioned specifically and separately and is rather small. Knight of Truth (talk) 15:52, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        Sounds reasonable. Now reads "female". — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"between 2010 and 2011 the number of women editors dropped from 13 per cent to 9 per cent" The number of all editors (both men and women) has also been dropping in the last years. So those findings are only useful if you put them next to the overall editor drop, so you find out if the number of women editors dropped faster than the general editor population or that it followed the same level of decline. Targaryen^{speak or forever remain silent} 08:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That's percent of editors. 13% of 100,000 or 9% of 70,000 still shows a more rapid drop in women editors. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:11, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- That's obviously what is meant, but as written it's unclear. It should say the "proportion of women editors dropped"; otherwise, it could be saying that the number was reduced by a percentage somewhere between 13 and 9 percent. Powers ^T 17:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:21, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Agenda here"

please fix the link to the agenda for WikiWomenCamp, it currently links to meta:Agenda which is absent, and the deletion log isn't much help. this article might have renewed interest due to recent events and a link to the agenda of WikiWomenCamp could prove useful to others besides myself. 173.87.169.15 (talk) 02:54, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]