[07:55:39] Change on 12meta.wikimedia.org a page Tech was modified, changed by ArchiverBot link https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=21744490 edit summary: [-917] Bot: Archiving 1 thread (older than 30 days) to [[Tech/Archives/2021]] [17:52:53] Seems quite desperate to reference Business Insider https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/3211696 [17:56:17] Wikimedia Enterprise :O [18:10:11] Bsadowski1: only 12 identical positions (error or not? who knows) [18:26:13] Ok, there are also 15 "Lead Technical Accountant" positions and various other unlikely duplicates so I tend to believe it's a clerical error :) [19:41:56] Nemo_bis: It's a feature, not a bug [19:46:41] :o [19:58:35] Nemo_bis: I think the slightly longer answer is that boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia has all of the job descriptions that are being advertised via job board systems across the internet. Recently the Foundation's recruiters have been experimenting with variations on the wording used in the job descriptions that are targeted to different demographics and communities (sort of A/B testing, but really a kind of localization). This experiment seems [19:58:35] to be working in that the Foundation is getting more applications for roles than we were getting before the experiment started. [19:59:33] I believe the listings at https://wikimediafoundation.org/about/jobs/ are duplicate free and a cover all of the open roles. [20:04:15] I see. I suppose it's about recent research showing that having certain adjectives in the job listings reduces applications by women and so on [20:12:24] (Or so I heard from someone in my current employer's HR department, which might be experimenting with the same greenhouse feature) [20:13:28] (Hmm wait, was that public information or not? oops) [20:21:28] There is quite a bit of good research (no citations on hand) showing that seemingly innocuous word choices do bias who will apply for a role. We have been doing semantic analysis for several years to try and keep that bias out of our postings. I think this goes a bit further in trying to craft introductions to the role that are targeted to folks in specific communities or geographies with words that are hoped to be more encouraging for them to [20:21:28] be interested in the role and the much bigger mission behind the role. [20:31:50] My preference is to completely get rid of such sentences which prove ambiguous enough to deter people for no good reason. For instance that "strong voice, leader, and collaborator" [20:32:39] "occasionally during crisis communications situations" you wish it were "occasionally" https://boards.greenhouse.io/wikimedia/jobs/3240433 [20:33:09] * Nemo_bis closes tabs [20:41:29] Anyway, it's good to be trying some different wordings. Better than not trying anything at all. :)