 fantastic panel who'll be presenting some critical knowledge on the work that they've been doing in the movement and on the project to, of course, model, map, and bridge knowledge gaps. The first presentation will be from Dr. Netta Hussein, who describes the process of mapping knowledge gaps on Wikipedia, drawing experience from a Wiki project, Women's Health. The second presentation will be from Danielle Metilli and Tiara Paolini, which explores the Wikidata Gender Diversity Project. The project explores gender diversity in Wikidata and focuses in particular on marginalized gender identities, such as trans and binary people. The presentation will explore how the current Wikidata ontology model represents gender, including quantitative methodology. And it explores looking at how the Wikidata community has evolved from very narrow interpretations of gender's binary towards the inclusion of a wider spectrum of gender identities. The third presentation by Galder Gonzalez explores the current list of 2,000 biographies that every Wikipedia should have, a list which has been created collaboratively by Wikimedians. The presentation shows how the list is far from being universal and how diversity is a contested topic when adding a new biography to the list. The presenters will analyze gender, location, time and language coverage and discuss a way to improve the diversity of the items proposed on that list. Finally, I will be presenting the foundation's plans to work together with communities to address the gender gap through more effective community programs. Questions covered will include what we have done in recent years to move the needle forward on the gender gap, what we are hoping to do in the new year to support gender organizers in the work and how people can find and reach out to us for more information and support. First, I would like to welcome to the stage Dr. Neta Hussein, who's a volunteer since 2010. Thank you so much, Neta. Thanks, everyone. My name is Neta Hussein. I'm a volunteer mostly working with articles related to women's health on the English language Wikipedia. So on the English language Wikipedia, we have a portal, a Wiki project for women's health, where we look at articles related to women's health, where people who work with women's health come together and talk about new articles for creation, saving articles from deletion, and increasing the quality of existing articles. So this project was started in 2015, but it did not create a lot of momentum. It was quite inactive as of 2022. And then I wanted to change the situation and I wanted to do more of mapping and bridging these knowledge gaps surrounding women's health on English Wikipedia. So I first started it off as a Wikipedia, in the Wikipedia namespace, with the title, Knowledge Gaps in Women's Health. And it dealt with reproductive health, sexual health, gynecological health, mental health of women, and even physical health, including preventive and social health. I also tried to touch a little bit on social and cultural issues surrounding women because health care and society and culture are very widely, very tightly interrelated, particularly in countries with low access to resources. So I began the process by mapping the existing knowledge gaps that we have in terms of women's health. So I used NAO boxes to be able to map all these knowledge gaps. So you can see that there's an hour box on women's health. It was already existing on English Wikipedia, but there are also NAO boxes on feminism, for example. So I mapped some of the existing knowledge related to women's health through NAO boxes. And then now it was time to find what missing articles exist. So I looked at 20 textbooks related to obstetrics and gynecology, women's health, and looked at the appendix section of the textbooks. I grabbed the keywords related to women's health and compared it with the corpus of information that we have on English language Wikipedia. And I found that you can see that many of them are red links. Some of them could be redirects. Some of them could be stub articles. I mean, all these red links are the articles that do not exist, but it doesn't necessarily mean that these articles could be created because sometimes this article would be existing in a different name so that it could be a redirect also. So I arranged them in alphabetical order, and this is the list that I collated by comparing external information with Wikipedia information and seeing what is missing with us. And because women's health is so vast, it was not possible to talk about knowledge gaps in everything. So I focused on three main important areas, misinformation, gynecological cancers, and abortion. And here I can show you some of the knowledge gaps related to misinformation. And it was surprising for me that we still do not have an article about misinformation related to abortion or misinformation related to birth control, for example. And a lot of gynecological surgical procedures also did not have an article. And this is quite important because we know that historically women's health has been marginalized in many countries, and the only access for them to know about the surgeries they are probably going to have would be from the internet. And probably it's Wikipedia that they are going to to look up more about the surgical procedures that they have to undergo. And you can see that all these articles are not present when it comes to gynecological surgeries, mortality, epidemiology, and I also try to map some knowledge gaps related to the economic impact of breast cancer and unsafe abortion, for example. There were some themes that were emerging. We have some good articles about sex and gender differences in different aspects of medicine, but we do not have an article about say gender pay gap in medicine, for example, or gender differences in healthcare access. And along with mapping these knowledge gaps, I also found references that could be used to bridge these knowledge gaps. And in the process, I also looked at how knowledge gaps vary between countries. So here is the article about abortion in Albania, and it's a start class category and its size is such and such. But when it comes to, you can see that when it comes to Europe, you have, you possibly have articles about most of the countries, but when it comes to Africa, you do not have an article about abortion in Gabon or abortion in Gambia or abortion in Mali, for example. So these are the knowledge gaps that I started to see when I looked at articles in terms of geography when it comes to abortion. And I did it with many other topics as well. You can go into the page if you're interested to know more about it. And one of the other areas that was missing is female predominant diseases. Some diseases affect women disproportionately than men. And I try to see how these articles lie in terms of quality when it comes to having description about how this disease affect differently between men and women. And the results are here. And after that, I also used Wikidata to find out what Wikidata knows about women's health and what English Wikipedia doesn't know about it. So there is this list of articles that Wikipedia knows. About women's health, but English Wikipedia doesn't know. For example, Corio-Carsinoma of ovary, it's given in italics, which means that this article doesn't exist on the English language Wikipedia, but Wikidata knows about it, for example. Yes, there is still so much more to do. This project could be replicated in different languages, not only in English. I need more tools to be able to, you know, do these lists for lists of articles that require cleanup, for example, could be done in a much better way. Right now, I'm using only the existing tools for mapping these knowledge gaps. So it would be really great if there is more support in terms of both tools, as well as, you know, participation from everybody speaking different languages to be able to, you know, do the same project in many different languages. That's all, thank you. Thank you so much, Neta. We will have a Q&A session after all of our panelists have spoken. We are now moving to, or not myself, I'm the last panelist. Next up, we have Danielle Metelli and Chiara Paolini, who are online. Yeah, hello. Hello, Anna. Clearly the connection will work. It just closed for a second, but we will try now to share the screen and start the presentation. Okay, so our presentation is titled, How does Wikidata model our gender? Findings from the Wikidata Gender Diversity Project. And I'm presenting today with my colleague, Chiara Paolini. So our project is called Wikidata Gender Diversity. It is a one-year project funded through the Wikimedia Research Fund. It will actually last a bit more than a year because it has been extended now until the end of December. So we are studying gender diversity in Wikidata. We are, instead of focusing like previous projects on the gender gap between men and women, we are focusing mostly on marginalized gender identities from a queer intersectional feminist perspective. And so we are centering, for example, trans identities, non-binary identities, gender queer identities, et cetera. The motivation for this project is that these identities, any identity that falls outside the gender binary in some way, suffers discrimination and systematic injury in society. And in general, any kind of gender or sexual diversity is impacted by this. So this is what we are focusing on. Now, the traditional way to look at the gender gap in Wikidata, but also in Wikipedia, for example, as I said, is overly simplistic because it is something like this where you have millions of men and millions of women and you measure the gap and you say, we need to fix this by adding more data, right? About missing women, for example, which is good. I mean, I'm not saying it's a bad thing to add more data about women specifically or about non-binary people, for example. But however, this is not everything because to actually fix the gender gap in a good way, we believe we need to look at why, what caused the gender gap, why is the situation like this? Can it be solved and how and what is missing here, right? So this is why we have these three research questions and three strengths in the project. So the first is about the modeling of gender, how gender is modeled in Wikidata, which is very important and somewhat of a prerequisite to understand then the data. So the second question is about the gender data that is actually there, who are the people and how is the gender identity represented? And the third question is about the community. So mostly looking at user discussions around gender and this tells us why gender has been represented in this way. So the three project outcomes will be a timeline of gender modeling in Wikidata. So this roughly corresponds to the outcome of the first strand about the model. But then also there is a gender dashboard showing statistics about the gender identities in Wikidata. And then there is a corpus of user discussions about gender, which will be described later by my colleague Chiara. Now about the model, first of all, we need to say a data model is always an interpretation of reality. So as such, it cannot be unbiased. It is biased because any interpretation of reality and any description of reality is biased in some way. So we need to be aware of this. We also need to be aware of the fact that reality changes and our understanding of reality changes. So the model is subject to change. However, a model that is very unstable is also problematic. So the initial approach to modeling by the Wikidata community was that every human must have a sex or gender and only one of the allowed values and the allowed values in the beginning were only made female and intersex. So it was based mostly on sex and not on gender identity. But it is somewhat ambiguous because the property that is used to represent gender is called sex or gender. So it is a bit unclear if it refers to sex assigned at birth or if it refers to gender identity. So this is a source of confusion for the users. Of course, there are other properties that are also involved in the modeling of gender, such as family relations, personal pronouns, et cetera, but we don't have time to go into them. And now the model evolved over time and there is a complex taxonomy and we are looking in detail at the taxonomy and trying to understand the issues and how it can be improved. But again, we don't have much time today to discuss this. When it comes to the data, Wikidata represents about 8 million people using statements that describe them, so biographical data and also gender. And when it comes to gender, the situation is like this, where we have 74, almost 75% men and 25% women, but then we have non-binary people and we have intersex people. Non-binary people is actually an umbrella, so there are many identities under non-binary in the current classification. And also I want to highlight that there are 400 men and 106, almost 700 women, but all these identities are severely underrepresented in the knowledge base compared to their prevalence in society. So it is important that this needs to be addressed and of course also the under-representation of women in general needs to be addressed. But then this is a more in-depth analysis of non-binary identities where you can see that there are gender-fluid people, gender-queer and many other identities. So the population of gender data was problematic because it was done initially manually by the user through the interface, but then importing from Wikipedia, which is not a reliable source, imported from external databases, which may or may not be reliable, but they have issues as well, especially with regard to the gender binary or that they have a binary view of gender. Gender is also imported from personal names, very problematic because this cannot be done in any reliable way and from pronouns as well. So these initial mistakes then had to be fixed, but some of them still persist. I am concluding my part of the presentation by saying gender needs to be carefully sourced. So it is not okay to source it by saying imported from Wikipedia, for example. But of course, the most reliable source for gender identity given that this is identity is the person. So the most reliable source about my identity is me. It is not the state or my document, which does not, for example, for myself, does not describe correctly my gender identity. It is also not a newspaper article, for example, or an encyclopedia. So this needs to be taken into consideration. And this conflicts somewhat with the traditional Wikipedia model, for example, of reliable sources. Now I will leave the floor to my colleague, Chiara Paolini, who will talk about the user discussion, which is the third strand of the project. Oh, hello everyone. I will try to be very quick. So yeah, this is the third part of our project that has a main focus, the users and specifically their discussions. So we are interested in how the users discuss gender and the issues around gender and how the narrative around gender has developed during time. So in Wikipedia, we have a big problem. We don't have biographical data of the Wikipedia users. So I mean, they're not available or collectible. For this reason, we created, we use this corpus-based approach because specifically I'm a linguist, so I'm mostly interested in linguistics. And what we did was to create a corpus about the discussion around gender. So we first build this corpus using specific keywords around gender, so like male, female, trans, non-binary, the different properties, different codes and so on. And this corpus is very useful because it helps us to keep track of the narrative around gender identities in the Wikipedia community, see how the narrative around gender identity changed during time and studying the impact of the LGBTQI plus movements and how they kind of bring some kind of awareness or the events around the world helped Wikidata to improve their representation of gender. Next, please. Dani, can you go next? Good slide. Dani, can you go next? Okay, sorry. So while the qualitative analysis is still ongoing, we did some kind of corpus analysis and specifically we did a topic modeling analysis. I think we are out of time, so I will keep this for the Q&A. So if you can go to the last slide, Dani, and we can finish this. Yeah. So one of the main outputs of this project is our chapter in the book Ethics in the Lincoln Data that is coming out very soon, apparently in December, if I'm not mistaken, where we described the first part, the first main part, the structure of the project and some of the results, among them the one that is for the corpus related study. And if you want, it's freely available on our website, widget.com. So thank you for listening and sorry, because we are out of time. Thank you. Can you use this? Okay, so I'm Galdar González from the BAS Wikimedia User Group. And this actually is a part of our research that he knew for my PhD. And it was sent to a journal in February, but still no answer from the peer review. So, well, I'm presenting it in any way. The idea was to observe the universalism diversity in the list of 2000 biographies every Wikimedia's will have. Is this to go to the next slide or yes? Okay. And it's a demographic research, okay? I will explain what I have done. So, short history, the list of 10,000 articles every Wikimedia's will have. I don't know if you know that, but it exists. And it's a project that this month, for the first time a Wikimedia has done, that is serving Wikimedia in August, 2023. In 2004, a list of 1000 articles was created to invigorate smaller Wikimedia's and ensured that each contain a minimum of information that will be of use to users. That was a project created in 2004. It had 140 biographies, including 32 that in a a paragraph called Women in History. In 2008, it was created the list of 10,000 articles just to make a wider list. And handle more voice and more diversity. This is what it was claimed when it was created. And we will center on biographies because there are topics. I mean, there are science topic, history topics, it is it that can be also research it, but we are going to center in biographies. There should be, and what I mean, should is what it states is like. There should be 2000. Currently there are 1,913 individual humans, but there are also some humans that are, some biographies that are not humans, like, I don't know, biblical people or Superman or this kind of biographies that are not actually humans that could be in fiction, but that's another topic. So I will define universalists as they believe that some interests are equally valuable for everyone. Like this is universal because everyone should be interested in this topic. And diversity, that the idea that local knowledge might be relevant for anyone, for everyone. There could be other definitions of universal and diversity, but I'm using this for the sake of clarity on what I'm saying. Okay, so how the analysis was made. First, I started out the biographies and the Wikidata items for those biographies. I built a patch pile where you can do other things with that. And then with Quica statement, I added P5008 to its unfocused list of Wikimedia project with time start to the items. So we can research in Wikidata in the future also if we change when this something was changed and how this list varies on time. There is a problem when we are defining location and this problem arise at first. In most of the biographies, mainly all of the biographies, we have a birthplace. But I mean, you can be born in one place and then migrate when you are one year old. So maybe it's not the best statement. There is also P27 that is nationality. And this is more problematic because of political change. I mean, without changing your place, you can be born Russian, then Soviet, then Lithuanian, for example. And you have three nationalities, but you didn't even move from your home. And this happens a lot. I mean, a lot of people from Singapore will be from the British Empire and so on. So, and the third one is the less useful that is P551, which is residence because it's only filled when someone is known to have reside in another place that is not the birthplace. So this is not the best one. So I chose P19, the birthplace. But this gives another problem that is the problem of continents, like Rudyard Kipling. Well, he's a famous English writer, but he's Indian. So he is from Asia. Barack Obama was born in Hawaii. So he's from Oceania. Cristiano Ronaldo is the most African, the best African football player in the world because he was born in Madeira. Or people from France can be actually from any continent because you choose someone who was born in France. You can say that his Caribbean are also from Oceania because he's from Caledonia or something like that. So continents will be traced by hand in most of cases, also in ancient Rome. So the results. Well, in the list there are 1,726 males and 185 females. I'm sorry for the last presentation because there was also more diversity, but I chose in this way. There are no other unknown. You have Judy Butler and Jack the Ripper, who we assume he's a man, but we don't know. So we have one other and one unknown. This is the location of the people. This is birthplace. So you can actually see quite good. Okay, you can argue that here and here, very few or actually here, very few people live, but that's not an argument. I mean, the list is quite, well, you can see it. It's quite easy to see. And location by gender is even more problematic because we have only these women here, step one. All of them are ancient Egyptian pharaohs. And we have only one African contemporary woman, I think not two because there is another one in here and only one woman in all Oceania. Okay, and here you have Barak Obama. Okay, so that's the map. Location by current sovereign country. I mean, the birthplace of this person with sovereign country belongs to actually, so United States of America, United Kingdom, France, Germany, Italy, Russia, India, Spain, Austria, People's Republic of China, Poland, Turkey, Netherlands. Okay, you can see this, United States and United Kingdom. And location by gender and continent. You can see that females, how is distributed and you can see the only non-binary is North American and you have nine people in Oceania and only one is sovereign. I think that this is mostly clear that this is not the diversity we should be pursuing. For information, most of the biographies are from the 20th century, like nearly a half, more than a third. And the most, the most representative decade is people born in the 1900s, I don't know how to say it, 1,900, I don't know how to say it in English properly. It's one in eight, it was born in that decade. So these people came with the template when I donated it. Okay, and it's perfect because it represents the current status. For language coverage, we have that for gender, this is quite complex, how is coverage. For females, there are 96 links per biography for males 98, most linked women is Elizabeth II, most linked man is Barack Obama, not Jesus. This is quite suppressive. Are there better options? Well, the problem of this is that they are finite. I think someone requires discussion who gets out. So, BTS, this is the most known K-pop group in the world. They are 0.5 of Korean GDP, but all other pop stars in the list are Anglophone. They are not in the list. Okay, but we have, for example, Beatles, John Lennon and Paul McCartney. So, I mean, we can't read one of them, like the Bad Beatles. Okay, Regoberta Menchus is an overpriced low-rate. There are only two women from Latin America, both are Argentinian, and there is no indigenous American woman in the list. So, why not, I'm Regoberta Menchus? Karina Kapoor, more than 60 films, the best box office actress of India of all times, but there are 34 youth actors and only two are Indians and both are classical. So, why not? I don't know, Humphrey Bogart, who cares? Karina Kapoor. Oxanachu Sobitina, she's the only person with eight Olympic participation in the history, and there is no women for Central Asia in the list, but there are eight boxers from the United States, okay, and there are only nine boxers in total. Or Ramon Yul, he's a medieval Catalan philosopher, theologian and encyclopedist. He's a precursor of combinatorie, well, he's a European, yes, but a fifth of all Europeans are from the British Isles. So, making a list is taking sides. There is no view from nowhere, there is no way to say, no, I'm completely neutral and objective, so we should take sides and say that, okay, there are views from some other places, and our view is profoundly Anglo-centric. The wisest man from London doesn't exist. I mean, the idea that there is someone in London who grew the British Encyclopedia and is the wisest man in the world, and we should take care of what his opinion is. It's not real, and I say this because if you propose like, okay, let's get rid of Paul McCartney to add BTS, you will have lots of from-raids, English people say, no, Paul McCartney is very important. Yes, he is, but BTS is also important, and so the London, maybe the one from London has to seat one of the seats to other. But this is a Zoom zero game, so the only way to win is if everyone wins and someone has to lose for that. It's not something additive, and this is important to, if we want to make this discussion, we have to be able to know that this is a Zoom zero. We can't win. I can't win, I mean, as a European male, heterosexual and white, I can't win forever, okay? So finalizing, a universalist presenting more people from New York State than from all Africa doesn't seem universal at all. There is more people from New York State, actually, there is more people from New York City than from Africa, but there is more people from New York State than from all Africa, and this is not something we should be promoting that way. And I think that that's it. It can be done, but we need to do everyone together and not just sit. The privilege to do the list to the people in Anglo-centric countries. Thank you, thank you. Thank you so much to our fantastic panelists for such thought-provoking contributions. I think in this current year, the foundation has been trying to actively listen to these concerns and build a better infrastructure to respond to some of the challenges and opportunities and I think uplift the work that gender organizers have been doing. So I do wanna apologize in advance to folks who are at the Mind the Gap event at Google. Earlier this week, a lot of this content is from there, but this is part of our attempts to really hear and reconcile what the movement is asking of us. So for those who might not be aware, a brief history of the gender gap is that it first became apparent in 2008 through a global study that found that 13% of all editors were female. This figure in 2011 was revised downwards to 9%. And at the time, Sue Gardner, who was a foundation executive reflected that equity in terms of gender was about making them psychopedia as good as it can be. Of course, an intersectional lens recognizes that quality isn't just about gender and gender binaries, but also intersectional gender identities. So class, location, ethnicity, ability. And wanting that to be at the heart of quality, which our fantastic panelists have pointed out. Today, they have been some improvements, but mindful that 2008 was a decade and a bit ago, we still see that 67% of Wikipedia readers on any given day are male, that men make up 80% of active editors and 80% of biographies on Wikipedia are about men. We center the male as the primary statistic here because, again, as Danielle pointed out in their presentation, that 20% within that gender grouping is so much diversity that needs to be accounted for. I'm trying to go as fast as I can so that they space for questions. But our movement is a reflection of the world. We do not exist in a vacuum. And in fact, when we look at the feminist movement and what has been taking place around the world, a lot of the same struggles that have been amplified and made real in the rest of the world are still things that our movement is trying to grapple with. Exogenous variables that lead to this include digital penetration, which is vastly gendered across the world. Smartphone access, social reproduction, so care, care work, unpaid care work, and what it looks like to have time for volunteering. Epistemic justice, which Galder and Netav pointed to, what knowledge is considered real knowledge or valid knowledge, and what are the power structures that underpin the validity of that knowledge? Patriarchal norms and values and how those shape, how mods and admins interact with content that is written about women and non-binary people. We also have very endogenous variables that are unique to our movement. What are our movement norms and culture? What does notability, verifiability, and neutrality look like in a space where it might be a quality issue to talk about gender equity and diversity? So we need to make it safe for women and non-binary people to do more than just join our movement. We want them to be able to feel like they can shape our movement and the foundation is putting our energy and our effort towards that. Many contributors, in fact, have led in this work and we recognize that we are, this is not a work that the foundation is championing in fact, you know, I see Maria here in the room and informed by conversations we've had. We recognize that this is a lesson that we have to embody based on the efforts of existing gender organizers, and I think that's not even a fair term, organizers in the movement who have committed their work to gender. So this is an interesting page. I have to give credit to Ben Bershbow for the slide, which is, you know, this question on what quality looks like. We actually see that through engagement with different feminist or gender user groups and affiliates in the movement, that quality and page views actually increase from those contributions. So as women and non-binary people are stepping into the movement and being welcomed into a community, they're having a direct impact on the quality of page views that are written and also, sorry, the quality of articles that are written in the number of page views that those receive, which is really exciting. This is, in fact, an effort that we want to be able to support. So we're listening and responding in the last minute that I have. I'm gonna get into the plan. I wanna say that part of this has looked like what we've been seeing in the movement, which is 65% of all general support and Alliance funds have as their focus gender content gap and 51% of programming focused on bringing in contributors from different gender identities into the movement. And we are actively trying to support that kind of resourcing in the movement. That is what the movement is telling us at once. But we know, for example, based on the six best practices that gender organizers have identified through a study done by Rosie Stephenson-Goodnight and the Foundation, is that gender organizers are hosting in person events focusing on content creation, specifically biographies, because creating a lot of non-biographical content focused on women, for example, the sustainable development goals, gender and climate, which is a norm in practice and the rest of the world in our movement is still met with a lot of resistance, particularly on English Wikipedia. We know that gender organizers and contributors care extensively about tracking progress of data is critical to the work. They want to be able to see the impact and also to be able to measure the impact. Recruiting new participants is really important, as well as ensuring that they have active partnerships with key stakeholders in society. Interestingly enough, because a lot of on-wiki communication feels unsafe to gender organizers, the study found that 80% of communication amongst those who are working on gender content is happening off-wiki. It doesn't feel safe to talk about gender in talk pages, and we are really interested in hearing from you what support looks like to ensure that there's a culture of change around that. We know that there are systemic biases and policies within the movement, and this is leading to poor community health. We're losing a lot of women and non-binary people, and we also know that issues around representation and leadership and decision-making structures within our movement needs to change. That's why this year we've committed to addressing gender. I'm gonna take just one more minute with this, and this is going to look like, I wish I had time to go into more detail. We will be having office hours where I can go a bit deeper with this, specifically building support for more intersectional content. So NETA's project on women's health has been identified as an experiment with an existing infrastructure of mapping that we want to be able to support. We want to hear from all of you who are working in these areas, what support you need so that we can begin to build out an infrastructure of support for content, including biographies, but also beyond biographies. We also want to be able to tell the story of what it looks like to be an organizer in this movement working on gender diversity and intersectional feminism, and make that part of a change narrative that is echoed out into the world. And we also want to be able to support skills and tactical development. This year, the foundation's organizer lab will focus specifically on supporting organizers who want to work on gender with tactical skills for growing the movement access to partnerships and resources in their organizer work. And also my first experience at an in-person movement event, we want to be able to support events like Wiki Women Summit, Wiki Women Camp, because we see how difficult it is for you to extend your unpaid care work into the movement. So what does it look like for us to take on that grant work and do the running for you so that you can show up and focus on the content? This is just a start. A frightening statistic is in 2021, the World Economic Forum in their global gender gap found that it would take 135 years to close the gender gap in society, but we don't have that much time. In fact, you see in our movement where we've sort of gone from 13% to 20% since 2008 that we actually are running out of time and we must avoid regression. But we're also mindful that this is a very lean approach in this financial year. That's because we don't want to take up space where we need to be listening and we need to be accountable. So we want to hear from you. Please do feel free to find me on mlawudzi-wmf on my talk page or by email at the same address or in person. I'm here to help, as is my team, online and in person. And thank you for the space. I don't want to take up much more time. Thank you for the small round of applause. I would love to open the floor so that you can ask questions to our fantastic panel. Thank you. Yes, please, if you have a question, the microphone stand is here. I'm gonna... Thank you so much to all the panelists for the very insightful session. And that was very much well detailed and researched. I think for me, while all the panelists were presenting, what was coming in my mind was then, how, how do we do this? The last panelist, also moderator, was Moon. I lighted about the gaps that exist on... I'm just trying to find it here. The gap that exists on the women, the Wikipedia readers, about, I mean, 67% are men, and then looking at also the active editors who are also men. So I'm from Uganda, and my name is Sandra, and I'm also an organizer for campaigns. And one of the campaigns is Wikigap. So this is what happened. I started being active in this contribution in 2020, and it was during the pandemic. So we are organizing Wikigap. Wikigap is a campaign for women by women. Women are encouraged to write about women and on women. So then you see that most of the people who are interested are men. So I was stuck in between there being an organizer and also being able to help editors to contribute on Wikipedia. So I see all the editors were men. So I was like, no, no, no, no, no, I can't do this. I can't see men writing about women issues. Women are supposed to write about that issue and they can write it more or better than anyone. So then I got challenged and I had to participate in the editor's own. I won industry that year. So I was like, how do we then get more women? So you will get about three women participating in the event. That was now 2021. And out of the blue, the women will disappear from participation on the editor's own. Now you get also the task that, oh, no, no, no, you can't see the men winning. So you get into the participation and then I win again. I'm tired, you know? So that happened again in 2021, 2022. So what was more challenging was in 2023. So I was like, you know what? I'm tired of winning. I need to see how best do we then empower more women to participate or to contribute on Wikipedia. So we try to bring more women to participate. Again, they were not participating. So what I really want to ask to discuss is how do we do this? And what was surprising is I contributed two articles on English Wikipedia and I was declared that I was a winner. So how do we do this? The how it should be discussed in this room. Thank you. I will start trying to answer that question. I mean, your question has many facets, one about editor retention and one about, you know, how do you approach women and try and make them editors? But this one comes from my past research based on Indian women and we tried to see what motivates them to participate on Wikimedia projects and what challenges they face. And one of the recurring challenges that they said were not based on Wikipedia, but very many cultural issues. They did not have discretionary volunteering time to be able to travel and go to these editathons. Somebody said that Wikipedia was their third job. Their first job was in the office. The second job was to take care of things at their home, child rearing and the third job was Wikipedia. So not having enough time was the repeated answers that I got from different women from different parts of the world. And of course, we also have problems within Wikipedia. We have issues of harassment, we have issues of bias and for some people it's off-putting that they have to contribute anonymously for fear of being harassed or such and such. And there has also been concerns about our interface. The interface is not sufficiently suitable for not sufficiently welcoming for women to come and contribute. So there's a multitude of issues. I don't know the solutions for this, but we have been talking about this way since 2009, 2010. Some changes have happened. We have got more women than before, but it's quite hard for me to put everything into one box and give one simple solution for everything. Editor retention has always been a problem, not only for women, but also for other minorities. When it comes to India, the Dalit community participates less, black community participates less. So we have this editor retention problem not only in terms of women, but also in terms of all other minorities. So I don't have an answer to your question, but I think mapping the issues again and again, revising the issues, doing research on these things would get us a clearer picture and probably some solutions might emerge from that. Ciel, do you have something to add to that? To this question. To this question as well. And I also want to share an example that really helps me to frame what is actually wrong with the gender gap. But now maybe Galdar also wants to... Yeah, time is up, unfortunately. Okay, but then I'm going to respond because we've been doing this, indeed. I've been around since 2012, as were you. We've been doing this for a long, long time. And it's a word of warning to the movement as a whole, to WMF in doing things, and to us as volunteers, to Sandra, to myself, to all of us gender gap volunteers, as long as we are still with 80% males and only 20% of women and non-binary people in the movement, we cannot expect from ourselves to have equal representation on every committee, in every project, like it is not fair. If you expect that from yourself, you're taking too much of the weight on your shoulders as that small 20%. It will not be, it is not fair to expect that we can have 50-50 representation as long as it is 80%, 20% in the movement still. So it's a word of warning. Be gentle, be kind, and look for allies. It is not only a woman thing. We need everyone. Absolutely. Thank you. I think these comments, these questions are really the summary of this conversation. I will say then as well, just to echo and to close, is we can learn so much from other movements, especially feminist movements, where women and non-binary people can tap in and tap out based on their capacity and maybe review what it looks like to be an active contributor in our movement and have space for different types of capacity as long as we require the same metric of success, that people who have ample free time and get that level of visibility, we will still run into some of the same structural issues. But we wanna talk about this as well. What do you need to get to 50%? Please find me. Please.