Talk:Proposals for more female editors

Proposals by User:James Salsman

The proposals by User:James Salsman are of interest and will be respected, but they have not been agreed to in the discussion on the gender-gap mailing list. Others may also wish to make proposals and comment on yours. Fred Bauder 03:05, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

No more than 9 of them started with me. I don't require attribution but I object to others' ideas being attributed to me. I intend to keep track of any objections raised and ask others to help with more ideas and keeping track of the rationales for both ideas and objections. James Salsman 07:50, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Some of these are good, some just OK, but for God's sake get rid of "Support a multilateral tax haven treaty in the US and any other countries that might still be opposing one". This is absolutely and totally a political issue, doesn't belong here, and is off-putting. I read the rationale at the GenderGap list and it does nothing to refute this. I mean, any issue can be cast as a gender issue. Why not "Support an international treaty banning land mines" and so forth - after all, women get destroyed by mines. I'm sure that there are two sides to the issue of whether or not the US should sign a tax haven treaty. Talking about biases - how about assuming that everyone here is a political liberal? Maybe I like it that my company can save costs by incorporating offshore, and maybe that means I can hire more people - including women. Consider this a point "to which objections have been raised", thanks. Herostratus 17:35, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at the secondary peer reviewed secondary sources at http://equalitytrust.org linking income equality to over 23 quality of life measures and let me know if you still feel the same way. Sometimes political reality is very much connected to the reality of global health levels and womens' enfranchisement. Excluding a pertinent issue merely because it's political might be a terrible mistake. There is more detail about the connections in the rationale linked at the end of the item. If there is any actual, non-speculative evidence that increasing corporate profits at the expense of government tax revenue is beneficial to women, please bring it to our attention. James Salsman 18:46, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Even assuming this is all true (which it would take a much longer argument than we have room for here), how would changing income distribution in any way encourage more women to edit Wikipedia? Are you just simply assuming that single women are itching to get online and start editing Wikipedia but they can't because they don't make enough money? Soap 17:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Since women are in most locales disadvantaged economically in aggregate, increasing economic equality -- growing the ranks of the middle class -- will tend to benefit women more than men, but both men and women will benefit. James Salsman 03:37, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Encouragement to address health issues

Please see http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimediaannounce-l/2011-February/000111.html James Salsman 20:11, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Were these ideas verbalised or excreted?

Because if you got the world's 100 most misogynistic imbeciles together and told them to come up with ideas to alienate women or get us in trouble, they would take one look at this page and give up, convinced we've done a far better job than they could even attempt. Let's go through the problematic ones. — Ironholds , — (continues after insertion below.)

Did you happen to read any of the rationales linked from the end of each item, before they were deleted? James Salsman 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

1. Ask chapters to compete to nurture the greatest number of female administrators

   Exactly how does this promote new female editors joining the community? If we have a lack of administrators, would it not make more sense to have chapters compete to nurture the greatest number of administrators generally? — Ironholds , — (continues after insertion below.)

   A greater proportion of female administrators would likely tend to cause administrator-involved dispute resolution outcomes to be more favorable and thus welcoming to women. Is there any evidence to the contrary? James Salsman 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

   Do you have anything to suggest administrative decisions now are bigoted or biased in some way? Ironholds 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

   This proposal only shows a deep misunderstanding of the communities dynamics. Are you saying that an entity external to communities is going to promote (or worse, to impose) candidates for adminship? If the answer is 'yes' it will only create a very counterproductive backlash. Communities won't allow such kind of interference in their processes and will oppose any action from external bodies to meedle in the so sensitive issues. As a matter of fact, all this gendergap issue is definitely misled. Do anyone really think that an initiative totally external to the communities, advertised in a newspaper, by a person that has no role in the communities, without any advertisement in the village pumps (yes, pumps, there are life outside the English Wikipedia), without any involvement of the communities, will go anywhere? As previously said, it only shows the deep misunderstanding of what wikipedia (not wikimedia) is. The Foundation exists only because a huge amount of people creates free content for free, not in the opposite way. --Ecemaml 13:29, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

2. Improve articles on interesting women and womens' issues/Bring all articles on birth control to featured status in all language wikipedias

   Ignoring, for a second, that many language versions do not have the FA process - what exactly are you trying to say here? That women are specifically interested in and attracted to woman-centred issues? Well, that isn't at all sexist. Assuming you're right (and you're really, really not) if you get all the "women's issues" articles to FA because this is what potentially female editors are interested in, said potential editors have absolutely no incentive to contribute. — Ironholds , — (continues after insertion below.)

   Are you proposing that women are not specifically interested in "woman-centered" issues? Isn't that contradictory by definition or at least from first principles? I am aware that the different languages have different names for similar improvement processes. I disagree with your assumption that a FA-class article is less welcoming to new editors than a good article, because newcomers often only add short facts rather than undertake complete revisions of entire articles. In any case, the sorry state of w:birth control and related articles is shameful, and shows newcomers that we aren't particularly interested in women's issues. The reason I specifically recommended focusing on birth control is because Hans Rosling, the epidemiologist with Doctors without Borders, has pointed out that the fastest economic growth in developing countries occurs about 15-20 years after the education of girls in methods of birth control, and the smaller planned families which result. James Salsman 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

   My use of "women's issues" was to indicate that the term is rather silly, and thus my argument isn't contradictory. On the subject of sorry states, you might want to check out, say, w:Roe v. Wade. Yes, we don't have brilliant articles on every piece of contraception or birth control; the same is true in every other area of the wiki, and I'm not sure exactly how you plan to convince a pile of volunteers to contribute to areas they wouldn't otherwise be interested in working in. I will reply to your last point at the end of this section, since it's part of a generalised point I'm going to make. Ironholds 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

3. Provide easily accessible contact information for people who are willing and able to mentor new contributors

   1) we're doing this and 2) this isn't woman-centric. — Ironholds , — (continues after insertion below.)

   Could you please link to where this is being done on the English Wikipedia? This was proposed by a woman on Sue Gardner's blog, so presumably it might not be visible enough. James Salsman 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

   See w:Wikipedia:Welcoming committee/Welcome to Wikipedia, the work of w:Wikipedia:Contribution Team (although that's in its infant stages in some ways) and w:Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user. Ironholds 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

4. Demote Wikipe-tan from English Wikipedia mascot to WikiProject Anime mascot.

   Not only is Wikipe-tan the Anime mascot already, she has never been, at any point, the mascot of the English Wikipedia. — Ironholds , — (continues after insertion below.)

   According to w:Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan, Jimmy Wales has endorsed Wikipe-tan as a community mascot. I'm not certain, but I believe this might have been in response to "Loli Wikipe-tan," the hentai version, and I've asked him to un-endorse her in favor of Puzzly. This change seems to have had the strongest support of any proposal so far on the Gendergap list. James Salsman 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

   The endorsement of Jimmy Wales back in 2002 means absolutely nothing. Firstly, the proposal failed to pass. Secondly, while Jimbo may claim to be a constitutional monarch, the only real similarity is that every time he tries to intervene or make his mark, the "people" start stockpiling pitchforks. Wikipetan is not and never has been the official mascot. Ironholds 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

5. Support a multilateral tax haven treaty in the US and any other countries that might still be opposing one

   Firstly, how does this apply to women? Secondly, you know what happens if charitable organisations start getting involved in political activism, or campaigning for a change in the law? They cease being charities. — Ironholds , — (continues after insertion below.)

   Firstly, please see above or the linked rationale where it is explained in detail. Secondly, the myth about charities not being allowed to take a position on political issues is not only simply untrue in the U.S. (although it may be to various extents in other countries) but I believe it's a profoundly dangerous falsehood. In the U.S., charities are allowed to take positions on issues but not candidates. However, because the two major political parties in the U.S. often polarize along issue divisions (creating two arbitrary sets of preferences to choose from out of 2ⁿ actual choices on issues) the distinction can become blurred and contentious. That is one of the reasons I have proposed an overlapping California or U.S. mutual benefit corporation chapter which would be allowed to take positions on candidates, if necessary, and unambiguously take positions on issues. I have seen far too many organizations surrender their political power before even engaging in debate because of the myth you are advancing here. James Salsman 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

   Well, some US charities are allowed to engage - it depends on whether the organisation is a public or private foundation, for which different rules apply. If the foundation is not allowed to take stances on candidates, your suggestion that we have an overlapping chapter which can sticks us in hot water. I'm not sure what the US law is regarding foundations like ours donating to politically-motivated or politically-polarised organisations, or being involved with them, but I suspect the outlook would not be good. The greater issue is that England and Wales cannot be the only jurisdiction in which a "strict" ban on political activism is the case. Any action in this regard could cut off a large number of chapters from interacting with us in some ways. This is probably something for General Counsel to look at (once he's officially hired) rather than us. The greater issue with your proposal will be discussed below. Ironholds 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

6. Less javascript for mobile devices

   Again, how does this apply to women? — Ironholds , — (continues after insertion below.)

   This was explained in detail in the rationale linked to at the end of the item. In most developing countries, women have an even greater income and wealth gap than they do in the developed world, which means they are more likely to have low end mobile devices less capable of, for example, rendering the javascript editing toolbar in less than 5-15 seconds and processing clicks/touches concerning it correctly, or rendering the Vector skin's search box over the "edit, history, watch" etc. links. James Salsman 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

   That's fair enough, and I'd support such a move, but the idea of this as a women-centric (rather than developing world-centric) idea seems somewhat flawed. Ironholds 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

7. Simple language wikipedias in languages other than English

   Are you suggesting that women have lower language skills than men? — Ironholds , — (continues after insertion below.)

   No; in fact there is reason to believe the opposite in some areas. However, there is absolutely no question that women are more often saddled with childrearing responsibilities than men are in both the developing and developed world, including responsibilities for the beginning and basic education of children. Therefore anything we can do to support beginning learners disproportionately helps women over men, at least until men take an equal role in childrearing. Is there any evidence to the contrary? James Salsman 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

   A different standard of proof from what you set in your first response, but lets roll with it. I think that simple-english Wikipedias should be encouraged simply as something aimed at the developing world, not necessarily as something aimed specifically at women. The question, again, is

8. The next three options are completely unrelated to encouraging new editing. — Ironholds , — (continues after insertion below.)

   You had better specify which you are referring to if you want me to respond to them, because User:Eloquence apparently deleted the ones he didn't like, keeping many of those you don't like but referring to your comments here as justification. James Salsman 21:57, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

9. Remove WP:NOTHOWTO because it is used to argue against topic notability but is not well respected

   Completely, utterly unrelated to encouraging new editors. — Ironholds , — (continues after insertion below.)

   On the contrary, NOTHOWTO excludes procedural knowledge in favor of semantic and episodic knowledge for no good reasons. As Fred Bauder pointed out, this excludes recipes (often associated with women's traditional interests, rightly or wrongly) as well as instructions for brake repair, which is not usually associated with women's interests but knowledge of which is essential for securing economic advantages when purchasing brake repair services. There is hard data that women are often taken advantage of by men at auto shops and the like who use asymmetric information to quote service charges much higher, for things like brake repair, than they do for men. But the more important issue here is that there is no rational basis or precedent for excluding procedural knowledge from an encyclopedia, and so NOTHOWTO is just another useless policy used to argue against inclusion. Many women on the Gendergap list and responding to Sue's blog post have pointed out that womens interests are often shouted down as excluded, so why not remove exclusionary rules which lack reasons? James Salsman 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

   WP:NOT is specific to a few wikis and not a general rule; on the contrary, WP:NOT's elements are one of our five pillars. The more general principles will, again, be discussed below. Ironholds 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• If we could please have some suggestions which aren't a) unrelated and b) from somebody who evidently has little experience of the communities he's commenting on, that would simply be spiffy. Ironholds 09:49, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

What are your proposals for making Wikipedia more inviting to women? Do you have any? I've been editing enwiki for a couple years longer than you have, according to your user page, by the way, and I think your willingness to claim seniority as a method of exclusion is a sad example of some of the core problems in this area. I don't really mind, because I've thought long and hard about these rationales, but what do newcomers, men and women, think when they see experienced community members acting in such a confrontational manner? James Salsman 21:12, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've got a few proposals which I'm about to pass on to the WMF. You seem to be misunderstanding; I wasn't claiming any kind of seniority. What I was pointing out was that you're a banned user on en-wiki, for example, and your proposals (Wikipetan comes to mind as a good example) highlight some ignorance of how the community operates these days, and what its rules are. Ironholds 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Your general proposals seem to be slightly misunderstanding the scope and objectives of the WMF. The Foundation may disagree with me on this - I'm not speaking from a position of any authority whatsoever. However. When you say "That is one of the reasons I have proposed an overlapping California or U.S. mutual benefit corporation chapter which would be allowed to take positions on candidates, if necessary, and unambiguously take positions on issues" and "as well as instructions for brake repair, which is not usually associated with women's interests but knowledge of which is essential for securing economic advantages when purchasing brake repair services. There is hard data that women are often taken advantage of by men at auto shops and the like who use asymmetric information to quote service charges much higher, for things like brake repair, than they do for men" here on this talkpage, as well as your mailing list comments about a tax treaty, you act as if the job of the WMF is to look at problems in the developing or developed world and go "this is awful. How can we fix this". Solving poverty and ending poor education is not our immediate goal. If you wish to start up a project with these goals in mind, by all means, propose it here on meta, but the point of these proposals is to increase the number of female editors. It is not to expand our jurisdiction to cover every problem in the developed or developing world. Ironholds 09:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Removing others' serious proposals??

While some of the proposals contributed by one individual were rather off topic, I can see some use to women in several of the others.

• Maybe people should at least propose removing proposals before just doing so? (Time wise they seem to have been removed before it was proposed to do so, in any case the same day.)
• Also if proposals can be removed that should be mentioned on top of the main page. (I'm thinking of putting a couple back, but would say why first above.)
• Also, let's be civil here in naming sections, since incivility has been identified on the Gender Gap email list as #1 thing turning women away. In fact, most of my proposals to come (now working on with others) are about incivility, personal attacks, harassment, etc. I certainly hope no one will delete those as not being specifically directed towards women getting/keeping more women. I did not want to have to join the Gender Gap list, but seeing lack of women here and possibly problematic processes, I may have to consider it. We'll see. Carolmooredc 16:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your kindness, Carol. What I need help with is this one:

• Most popular related articles.[1][2]

Does this make sense?

This is another feature which can help beginning learners find content appropriate to their vocabulary level, and thus will tend to benefit women saddled with greater educational responsibilities disproportionately. For example, lets say you were confused by the math formulae in the simple:Cosine article. If a list of most popular related articles were displayed, w:Triangle and w:Trigonometry might figure prominently on it, and would tend to help you find a much simpler or more comprehensive background article, respectively. Most popular related articles also addresses two or three of the factors identified on http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:091207_QOTW.png James Salsman 03:55, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Some thoughts

Is the lack of female editors really an issue unique to Wikimedia projects? Participation in user-generated content sites – wikis, forums, blogs – is notoriously and invariably male-biased. I don't really think there's much we can do to change that. I think this particular endeavor is misguided, honestly. If male predominance is creating gaps in content, we need to set specific goals for filling in those gaps; "more women" isn't an effective solution in and of itself. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 23:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2009/who-rules-the-social-web/ suggests that most social networking sites have a majority of women. Apparently this is confirmed by multiple sources of data. Why do you say that more women editing wouldn't effectively address the problems with content gaps in women's issues? James Salsman 02:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We're not a social networking site; I'm not sure why that's relevant at all. If we took 500 women, put them on computers, and told them to edit Wikipedia, do you think we'd have more comprehensively coverage of womanly issues by the next day? Probably not, which is why I don't think simply having more women who call themselves active editors is going to address any particularly significant problems. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Flickr isn't primarily a social networking site, either (I'm sure some would disagree) with their purpose very similar to Commons, but they still attain 55% women. I do believe that having more women administrators will result in dispute outcomes more favorable to women, and thus a site more welcoming to women, and thus better coverage of women's issues over time. That is why I think nurturing female admins is more important than outreach to new female editors. No, it won't happen overnight with 50, 500, or 5,000 new women editors, but the way things seem to be going now, we had better start somewhere or next year the media will be asking why we have even less female participation. James Salsman 05:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Flickr is an entirely different crowd and fosters an entirely different atmosphere than Wikipedia (for instance). I'm a long-term contributor to both, and flickr is dominated by experienced, artistic photographers, of which, naturally, many are women. Discussions on individual file pages are typically positive in nature, congratulating the photographer for their work. Positive feedback is appealing to all ages, races, and, of course, sexes. Additionally, the most well-received flickr submissions are usually highly creative and abstract, which is another reason why women find that project more comfortable to work with. On the other hand, discussions on wikis and forums are often critical at best and at worst, flamethrowing fests. It's to be expected that moderators and administrators are abused and receive excessive criticism from disillusioned users. Most people, let alone well-meaning women, would have nothing to do with poorly justified day-to-day flak. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe this problem is somewhat overstated. If it were really a serious crisis we would have noticed it on our own a long time ago, not just when the mass media told us it was. Note, I just happened to stumble on this page and am not assuming my opinions are shared by others; I just wanted to say it at least once. Soap 01:42, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please have a look at the mailing list discussion. A lot of people have noticed this problem much earlier. The earliest mention I can find so far is a discussion of rampant sexism in articles about celebrities from the 2004 Village Pump. James Salsman 02:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

This doesn't answer my objection. I said that if the gender ratio were such an obvious and long-standing problem we would have noticed it and discussed it long before now. A link to a recent mailing list discussion and an assertion that you found a similar discussion seven years ago on a different forum doesn't change my opinion. But fair enough. If we're going to try to recruit more female editors to Wikipedia, let's at least do it the right way by asking them why they're uncomfortable here instead of just brainstorming solutions that in most cases are not clearly related. Soap 16:51, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm only reading the list and very happy to see so many women have observed or had same problems I have. For various reasons I'm going to keep my responses and proposals in various places around Wikipedia, including here when a few more are fleshed out in other Wikipedia forums. But I do want to say that the best article I've read so far is the (only barely on some articles) exaggerated and very funny article Independent article Wikipedia: This is a man's world. Nothing like laughing at the beast to tame it.

So I think a good brainstorm like this is just what we need, before putting best proposals into action. Most importantly, like the Independent article, it's a Consciousness Raiser. ... Just when I thought I was getting fed up enough with Wikipedia to quit, hope comes along. YEAH!!!!! Carolmooredc 03:36, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• I'm also not convinced that it's a particular problem, but it's rather hard to prove a negative. How do we show that the low participation of women hasn't hindered us? The big drive has to be to get new users generally, but if we can use this drive to correct a problem or perceived problem with the demographics of the community, I see no reason why we shouldn't try. The issue is coming up with decent, useful ideas which won't step on too many toes. I have a few of my own, which I'll be sending to the relevant people today. Ironholds 07:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Women have a higher rate of college graduation in English speaking world (US anyway) and tend to be more careful in providing references. Women are almost 50 % of users readers, but many topics they come to see that are of greater interest to women are poorly written. Topics of general interest may be missing significant input from WP:RS females because male writers don't think they are as important as male WP:RS.

I'm interested in getting lots more retired, educated women here with time on their hands; and retired women live longer. If wikipedia's talk pages and the articles they produce are too much like a food fight frat house (as too many can be), it will turn them off, as well as all other women - and anyone with a serious thinking brain. Carolmooredc 15:20, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume you mean "readers" rather than "users" (if women made up 50 percent of the users we wouldn't be having this discussion!). Generally agreed, but there's no specific need (under your argument about college graduation) to target women. We'd just target colleges. On that subject, I've got a proposal I really must get around to submitting. Ironholds 15:26, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Updating from Gender Gap email list?

I don't know if someone was going to be doing that. Or is catch as catch can? Carolmooredc 18:11, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm trying, but I'm way behind. Please do continue to help. I am sure that the ideas supported directly by women, or more than one person, will do far better. So if you can see the connection between helping beginning language learners such as children and helping women in general, or between helping low end mobile client editing and helping women in general as displayed above, then please do speak up with a paraphrase in your own words, so it doesn't seem like it's just my ramblings. I have been known to ramble. James Salsman 03:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

whether proposals must be explicitly and directly pro-women or if others may have like effect

One issue about proposals is whether they're women-centric. Some proposals that appear to benefit people generally may turn out to be more beneficial to women, if they provide a means of which relatively few men will take advantage. If that helps solve the problem, so much the better. Nick Levinson 04:47, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

International Woman´s Day

I have this question: If is so important to get new womans writting (wich I think is not), and Wikimedia is so concern about, did the Foundation think to make any "special gift" to us? like send digital flowers, messages or wathever? --Andreateletrabajo 21:30, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

How we've being working at the Simple English Wikipedia

Hi all!

About two years ago I decided slowly that I did not like the demographics of the project and felt it was old man-young man syndrome with very few females of TGLG persons. I'm positive to everyone's lifestyle! As such I slowly started to increase the female/TGLG population and get those type of people actively joining and staying. Two years later I think we've made big strides to change the wiki. The people I asked, I asked to contact others. At the time simplewiki was mostly macho-ish males and new users were often jumped on. I bided my time, got a few flags and then start asking others for help in changing the demos. It's an approach I'd advice to any wiki, it's working for us (we'll probably have out first non-male crat) soon, CU next! :). Please ask me if you want to talk about ideas of if you want to speak to the editors I attracted and ask them who it happened. Thanks ladies and gentiles. My next plans for simple wiki are to mgain many more older and higher edcation other sexes to understand and believe in the simplewiki way. fr33kman 04:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC) (card carrying femenist!)

The feminists don't issue cards because cards are an economic poll tax in practice. We need simple wikipedias in other languages, and a way to unify watchlists as a default preference. Do you know anyone with MediaWiki PHP experience who wants to work on that? S.J. Klein in Boston expressed an interest, but someone needs to architect a way to make it compatible with the cross-wiki watchlists. How would that not be a fun Google Summer of Code project? 71.141.127.228 23:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I made my own card ;) As to the other, I'm sure you can find someone who can do that sort-of stuff, I'm not he. :) fr33kman 01:12, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Step ahead

Hi. In es:WP had create both her/he userboxes. I think that´s a beginning, isn´t it? --Andreateletrabajo 12:36, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I suppose userboxes are a decent way to express self-identify, and I think a lot of projects already make use of gender-specific ones. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 11:47, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I´ve got near 1 and a half year in es:WP and had ask for femals userboxes long time ago, and just now they did it. The only one already exist was "This wikipedist is a woman". --Andreateletrabajo 21:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Who wants a family planning article improvement drive?

I do. Who else does? 99.50.126.70 21:14, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

WMF grant proposal

I have submitted a proposal for one of WMF's new Individual Engagement Grants. It is a pilot project to determine whether coaching new editors on their writing for the English Wikipedia improves editor retention, focusing on women and Global Southerners. If you would like to endorse this project, you can do so here. I would also appreciate any other feedback, pro or con, which can be posted here. Thanks! Libcub (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)