Commentary in The Daily Dot. <div><br></div><div><a href="http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-sexism-problem-sue-gardner/">http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-sexism-problem-sue-gardner/</a><br><div><br></div><div>
---o0o--- </div><div><br></div><div>Wikipedia found itself squirming uncomfortably last week after charges of systemic sexism drew heat from media outlets across the world and sparked widespread outrage on social media. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Yet according to the head of Wikimedia, the nonprofit that runs the encyclopedia, the whole sexism kerfuffle shows the system actually works. </div><div><br></div><div>[...] </div><div><br></div><div>Gardner begins backing herself into a corner of contradictions. She claims Wikipedians are &quot;a vastly more diverse group than the staff of any newsroom or library or archive, past or present.&quot; </div>
<div><br></div><div>That statement is demonstrably false: Wikipedia is overwhelmingly young, white, and male. Its users are as diverse as the readership of Maxim. </div><div><br></div><div>[...] </div><div><br></div><div>
&quot;In this instance the system worked,&quot; Gardner writes. &quot;Filipacchi saw something on Wikipedia that she thought was wrong. She drew attention to it. Now it’s being discussed and fixed. That’s how Wikipedia works.&quot; </div>
<div><br></div><div>If that&#39;s the system, then it&#39;s broken. Women should have never been cut from that list. And they probably wouldn&#39;t have, if only more than 10 percent of editors on the biggest encyclopedia in history were women in the first place. </div>
<div><br></div><div>---o0o--- </div><div><br></div><div>He&#39;s right.</div></div>