On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:47 PM, Amy Roth <aroth(a)wikimedia.org> wrote:
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [Gendergap] Women and
Wikipedia by Barbara Fisher Date: Fri, 04 Feb 2011 16:32:57 -0500 From: Sarah
Stierch <sarah(a)sarahstierch.com> <sarah(a)sarahstierch.com> Reply-To:
Increasing
female participation in Wikimedia projects
<gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org><gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org> To:
gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Yes, some women have chosen not to make contributions for various reasons
or lack of interest, we all know that. But, I also won't fall for the
concept that it's "our fault" (as a woman). I also think it's funny
that
people really do believe women don't have interest in "the facts."
Surprises me when female involvement in liberal arts studies are growing,
for example, check out museum industry - an industry that is dominated by
women. The majority of history classes I take are now full of women, and
women's involvement in the sciences continues to grow as well. Again, it
really surprises me that people think women aren't in it for the facts.
But, perhaps the fact that I don't read studies on that stuff says
something. :)
I'd really like to start branching out into the internet and offline
communities to see what womens thoughts are. I think we should seriously
consider interviews or a more experience oriented research study about those
who identify as females and what their experiences are - why and why they
don't "do" Wikipedia. I think it'd shed a lot more light than numbers
and
non-sourced quotes. I will gladly assist in forming a research team for
this.
Feminist "bulldust." Charming!
On 2/4/2011 4:19 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
On Friday, February 04, 2011, Steven Walling wrote:
Joseph Reagle's op-ed explains this argument further I think:
http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wiki…
I think that argument is often implicit, though, I haven't heard it expressed
explicitly by any Wikipedians. *But* you can find plenty of examples of this argument
explicitly in response to the NYT's article itself.
For example, on the rather huge set of comments on a "anti-genderist" site:
It makes me happy to know that men are dominating the internet and women have absolutely
no excuses. What are they going to do? Silence men to ensure equal representation?
Or elsewhere:
The NYT article below sees everything but the obvious in the fact that few women
contribute to Wikipedia: That men are more interested in facts and women more interested
in socio-emotional relationships. Men and women are the same, you see: Feminist bulldust.
The fact that Wikpedia is voluntary and open to all DEMONSTRATES that men and women have
inherently different interests. There is no oppressive "patriarchy" refusing to
hire them
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing
listGendergap@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
/
--
Sarah Stierch Consulting
Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
-----------------------------------------------------
I second Sarah's proposal to research why women don't contribute to
Wikipedia. I have some ideas as to how we can do this using social media to
branch out and evaluating email threads to look for repetitive themes.
Because the opposite of the negative does not necessarily equal the
positive, it is also important to look at the converse of that question, so
we ask:
What makes women contribute to Wikipedia?
I have a second thought to chime in here. We have strong evidence to believe
that the limited diversity of WP editors limits the content of Wikipedia and
we know that new articles are not being created at the rate they were 3-4
years ago. Is it possible that the limited content has an effect on the
editors who participate? For example, suppose a potential woman editor wants
to work on an article about Charlotte Ray, the first black woman lawyer. But
there is not even a stub for Charlotte, so our editor tries to create the
article, but it is immediately tagged for deletion for notability reasons.
Having heard from many new editors, it is incredibly common that the initial
contact with Wikipedia is that their article is deleted. I'm proposing that
existing content is limited by the ideas of what the majority of the current
community believes is notable, and it is difficult for new editors to earn
the reputation within Wikipedia to influence this. So in effect the current
content is limiting what new editors can contribute, and I suspect this is a
major stumbling block for new women editors
-Amy