Essay talk:Gender and Sysops/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 29 January 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Tedious

"or doing tedious yet helpful tasks." Hey, what a coincidence. People who do that on CP are called vandals. Barikada 02:19, 26 February 2008 (EST)

XD -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:59, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Ratio

Have you calculated the user ratio of men to women? Is it different to the sysop ratio?--Bob^{bing up} 03:35, 26 February 2008 (EST)

No, admittedly. It's difficult because many users don't ID their gender, so it requires scrutinizing their past interactions for some indication of it (i.e., whether others refer to them as "she" or "he"). Additionally, for the user count to be meaningful, one would have to sift through the "joke accounts" (which always form the vast majority of accounts on any wiki—unless we really do have 1,611 contributors?) to discern the legitimate users. So, yah, it's too much a pain in the ass to do a scientific study. The numbers, where no reference is given, are based off of my personal experience. And I'll be the first to admit anecdotal evidence isn't scientific. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 04:25, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Just to annjoy you further, RA: Wouldn't it be more statistically precise - such as it is - to compare the number of self-identifying females to that of self-identifying males, instead of to the group os sysops as a whole? --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 15:05, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Indeed, you are annoying. : ) As to your point, your methodology is as good as any. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:13, 26 February 2008 (EST)

As to your question for harder numbers, AKjeldson, I spiffed up the essay's references and numbers regarding Uncyclopedia quite a bit. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 18:38, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Excellent, excellent. Keep up the good work. :waves vaguely: --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 18:43, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Oh Yeah?

"In general women tend to have better interpersonal skills. " ? Susan^Purrrrr 06:18, 26 February 2008 (EST)

What? It wasn't like of accusing you of having such qualities. : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 13:03, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Meep! *backs away slowly* ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ do do da de do da de

Icewedge

I know, you apologised, but I think he is just shy in some ways. He does communicate occasionally, and he's always polite and helpful. More often, his reaction to a comment is to act on the article in question (see the evidences against a recent creation "organisation" process). Overall, I think your analysis of roles vs. ratios is interesting. It would be cool to see the numbers for WP, although that would be much more difficult, since they have, what 1000s or 10000s of sysops? human 14:05, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Shy? ...I hadn't considered that. Do you think I should apologize directly to him?

Nah, in the context of what you are saying, his quietness is a factor. human 16:52, 26 February 2008 (EST)

As for the number of sysops on Wikipedia, they have 1,504 "users with administrative tools"[1]. As for the difficulty of formally studying gender ratios on wikis, Wikipedia also has 6,534,300 registered users. Uncyclopedia has 75,503. But, according to Wikia, Uncyc has only 644 "active" editors.[2]. That is less than one percent. Assuming Wikipedia has a similar proportion, then they have about 60,000 regulars. And I don't think anyone wants to sift through all of them to determine gender. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 14:23, 26 February 2008 (EST)

Just do what teh assfly does - find a userbox or two or search for a phrase and base all your analyses on the results! Especially if they confirm your preexisting notions. human 16:52, 26 February 2008 (EST)

hey beotch

At least six (or more!) or so of our male "sysops" are totally inactive. If we gave a shoat and desysopricked them, you'd have to rerite yr "SA" human 04:43, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

Tru dat. But then I would have to do the same for Uncyclopedia's numbers—determine which admins are inactive, and, just as troublesome, determine how many of the 62 female users there are also inactive. Do you always make suggestions that are a pain to follow through on? : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 12:55, 10 March 2008 (EDT)

heresy!

so now you are both godless AND soulless? i see... Rubico 03:10, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

"Now"? I have always been soulless and godless. Forever and always. -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:12, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Comments

"2 out of the 35 active sysops on RationalWiki are (self-identified as) females,"

Is that true? Kels and Susan come immediately to mind, of course. I thought a couple of the recently demoted 'sops were of the non-male variety?

Also, you have to take into account any editors/sysops/admins who do not self-identify, rather than allowing the default be "male", right? Resulting in a more complex statistic (I think the article could use appendices, hehe), of x out of y identified 'sops, not out of the total. Just a minor point. ħψℳ₦ 20:24, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

Also, I think your "conclusions" section should be more rightly called "recommendations". ħψℳ₦ 20:29, 22 May 2008 (EDT)

I felt naming the section "conclusions" was in keeping with tradition—analytical papers with an agenda have always contained rather opinionated suggestions in their conclusions. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:43, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

To address your issue with my assumptions about gender: even though we probably do have female users who choose not to identify themselves as such, by not correcting users who refer to them as "he" or otherwise specifying their own gender, they themselves assume the identity of males. No one imagines others as politically-correct genderless people. Other users will eventually drop the "s/he" usage with them and generally refer to them as "he", and we subconsciously grow to treat them and think of them as males.

Part of what makes the internet so special is that one's "true" identity doesn't matter, what matters is the identity you assume while interacting with others. Gender is defined as your sexual identity in the first place. If I had intended to analyze the ratio between anatomical females and anatomical males, I would've used "sex" instead of gender, and my ratios would be in terms of vaginas:penises. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:04, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I do think we still have editors who are "undefined", although probably not many. As far as acccidental "he" references, if someone prefers to be "genderless" on here, correcting a "he" would "out" them. I don't think we have any indeterminate sysops, though, looking at the list. Except maybe you. Iz you be a boy or a girl matzah? ħψɱ₦ 13:09, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Aren't we all human beings in the end? : ) -- Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:02, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

You must be a boy, or you would have added yourself in the number of girl sysops ;) Outed!!! ħψɱ₦ 15:04, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Indeed I am. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 15:23, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Your numbers...

...are all wrong, beeeeeoooootttccchh!!!! ħψɱ₦ 00:19, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Could you provide specifics, so I can continue improving the essay? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:18, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

all you have to do is re-research your numbuz, I messed them all up. ħψɱ₦ 01:31, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Your footnotes #8 & #9 are out-of-date, too. Lyra § talk 01:53, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

I know. I'm leaving them that way on purpose. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:45, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

RA

You overgrandize yourself, and your analysis is poor. Sorry. (see my comments re: self-identified users). ħψɱ₦ 02:25, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

"Overgrandize?" --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 04:39, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

It's ok, he undergrandized hisself now. And adapted the writing to be about a specific point in time, with an update at the end. ħψɱ₦ 13:08, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

"Undergrandize"? --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 13:10, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Wait, what?

When did I become a Bureaucrat? --Kels 13:17, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

At 06:16 today. --AKjeldsen^{Cum dissensie} 13:21, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

Actually it was just after midnight, "our" time. ħψɱ₦ 14:15, 23 May 2008 (EDT)

So, RA...

So, RA, how do you propose we get our various lady-gendered friends to give a shit about the site? I actually registered one who iz really smaht and all - and introduced me/hooked me on CP back in 3/07, but she ain't chimed in. ħuman

I am neither qualified nor ideally placed to recruit for the site. The only thing that comes to mind would be to amass a giant list of women on the internet and spam them with invites to RationalWiki. But that would probably be counterproductive. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:19, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

You never know, that might be the ideal solution. Might get you some dates, too. Ya never know ;) ħψɱɐ₦ 03:45, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Are you implying my love life is lackluster or something? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 03:51, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Hey, in terms of said recruitment, I've done my part already. There's just... not that many girls on the internet, unfortunately. Uchiha^KATON! 18:16, 25 May 2008 (EDT)

Bureaucrats: Kels & Me   ^Contribs_Talk 14:04, 3 July 2008 (EDT)

And honestly, I don't do a lot. Just check the response time to this message. --Kels 13:32, 10 August 2008 (EDT)

Awesome job

And you got something accomplished with it! Researcher 16:34, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Thank you, Researcher. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 23:42, 4 July 2008 (EDT)

Human's "comment"

I'm sure Hu can answer for himself but reading the edit history I think his remark was a sarcastic response to the suggestion that women have better inter-personal skills. And knowing Human, his snark is an ironic reference to Aschlafly's comments about women and science. Genghis^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 17:20, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

Thats pretty much what i thought, when I read it. I didn't see him *supporting* the idea that women can't kick his butt in math (the right woman, anyhow) at all. --Waiting for Godot 17:27, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

What I don't understand is Eira's "refutation", since it shows a lack of understanding that what I wrote was clearly arguing against the sexism in the claim "in general women tend to have better interpersonal skills". ħuman 17:51, 12 August 2008 (EDT)

"This user is a pedantic bitch, unnecessarily verbose, a prevaricator, and self-contradictory. Don't trust anything she says!" <--- doesn't anyone read User Boxes anymore? Seriously... don't take anything I say here seriously! :P Except my logical proof that God can't exist without an intelligent definer... --Eira ^omtg! The Goat be praised. 05:38, 13 August 2008 (EDT)

thanks for the "hello"

I will try and check out your essay when I have time. The topic looks interesting. - my youngest daughter is writing her Ph d. thesis on Gender and Punk Rock. Life is supposed to be interesting. Einar aka Carptrash 11:25, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Always glad to roll out the welcome wagon. And thank you, Carptrash! Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 16:41, 16 August 2008 (EDT)

Dinner at Joan's

I think that these would be considered Northern New Mexico green chili enchiladas. The tortilla (Bottom Right) are fried, soaked in the green chili (Top R), stuffed with a cheese and chicken mixture (BL) and spread out with similar ones (TL). It's all washed down with Tecate Mexican beer (cheaper than bottled water, if you get a good deal) amid stimulating conversation. Expect guacamole on the side and some sort of baked desert afterwards. Always a great way to spend time. Perhaps - if I get into Lyall Watson (the great pseudoscientist [[3]] stories we'll get back to Joan's for another memorable event (Thanksgiving, I think) . Carptrash 19:04, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

  ^Contribs_Talk 19:16, 23 September 2008 (EDT)

This was in response to a question on an image page [4]. I clicked (or believed that I did) on the users icon (which was complicated) and ended up here. I reposted it at the image and would be happy to remove it from here once I understand what happened. Carptrash 19:25, 23 September 2008 (EDT)