5 ms·
> Apparently editors identifying as a woman get rolled back far more often then men. I'm not a scientist, however, this sounds like it could be a legitimate st
by dataviz1000 5y ago
> Apparently editors identifying as a woman get rolled back far more often then men.
I'm not a scientist, however, this sounds like it could be a legitimate study. If it is, what is the control group? 50 men doing the same?
- oxfordmale 5y agohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- belorn 5y agoDon't be lazy. The actually data, as given in the study, is that the first 1 edit has a 2% higher rate of reverting than males, with each further edit a decreased revert rate to the point where female users are less likely to be reverted than male users once they hit their 16th edit. The statement that "Apparently editors identifying as a woman get rolled back far more often then men" and the actually research result is quite far from each other.
- stickyricky 5y agoI don't trust this source. The article is on a website with a well-known gender bias[1]. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia