<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 2/3/11 4:55 AM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTin+ZiXEr0NMDZAXODAMA-Fi9JB0TrJ8rsNQ+Qde@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Fred Bauder <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:fredbaud@fairpoint.net"><fredbaud@fairpoint.net></a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The question remains: Why don't more women edit even those articles that
we know women are interested in? And is there anything we can do to
facilitate more participation?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Why should they?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
This is a good point, and I have been surprised in talking about
this issue before that not everyone (even with full knowledge of the
gender disparity) even necessarily identifies it as a problem. To
me, there are at least three important points, which people probably
agree with or value to different extents. <br>
<br>
1) Greater female participation is good for Wikipedia's quality; <br>
2) Greater female participation is good for Wikipedia's editing
experience; and <br>
3) Greater female participation is good for women and/or society
(i.e., empowerment)<br>
<br>
I think all three of these are good reasons, but, perhaps
counterintuitively, I actually think the latter two are most
important. While I definitely believe that more women (and other
types of increased editor diversity) will improve Wikipedia's
quality in terms of coverage, tone, and balance, the eventualist
wiki-theorist in me believes that the wiki model can somehow
overcome systemic bias of all types even if there is never perfect
representation of all groups. To make a related point, we shouldn't
want women only for the improvement of coverage of female
perspectives and topics, just as we don't value men only for their
male-oriented editing (not that there are such clear categories, but
that is another debate).<br>
<br>
As an editor, the prospect of #2 most excites me, since I enjoy
diversity of perspectives and experiences in the communities in
which I participate, and even think that a greater female voice will
have a positive aspect on the atmosphere of the project. Also, to
make the obvious point, it is harder to identify and police aspects
of the editing community that are unfavorable or unwelcoming to
women without women.<br>
<br>
I include the third point because, as a social good, women should
become equal partners in the production of cultural works. I thought
it's important that we not lose sight of that fact; while most of
the rationales people have raised here and in the media have focused
pragmatically on the effects female participation will have on the
project, the idea of full participation in all aspects of society is
as much about what that will do <i>for women</i> (in countering
marginalization and building up women's personal capacities through
their sense of dignity, self-worth, and self-confidence) as it is
about what women will do <i>for society</i> (we don't necessarily
expect achieving gender parity in the field of chemistry to lead to
breakthroughs men are incapable of, but it's still a worthy goal).
Someone versed in gender theory can probably make the last point
more eloquently than me, but that may become a tangent.<br>
<br>
Anyway, I'll stop there, except to say that while I am generally
skeptical of the usefulness of pontificating on mailing lists (which
isn't to say I don't enjoy it), I am happy to see this new effort
and hope it will lead to real results.<br>
<br>
Dominic<br>
</body>
</html>