<!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 text="#000000" bgcolor="#ffffff">
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."<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
But, perhaps the fact that I don't read studies on that stuff says
something. :) <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
Feminist "bulldust." Charming! <br>
<br>
<br>
On 2/4/2011 4:19 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
<blockquote cite="mid:201102041619.46246.joseph.2008@reagle.org"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On Friday, February 04, 2011, Steven Walling wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">Joseph Reagle's op-ed explains this argument further I think: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikipedia/open-doesnt-include-everyone">http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikipedia/open-doesnt-include-everyone</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
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:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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?
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
Or elsewhere:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">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
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap="">
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org">Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org</a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap">https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
/<br>
<br>
<div class="moz-signature">-- <br>
<div><span style="color: rgb(39, 153, 128);">Sarah Stierch
Consulting</span></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(39, 153, 128);">Historical, cultural
& artistic research, advising & event planning.</span></div>
<div><span style="color: rgb(39, 153, 128);">------------------------------------------------------</span></div>
<div><a href="http://www.sarahstierch.com" style="color: rgb(39,
153, 128);">http://www.sarahstierch.com/</a></div>
</div>
</body>
</html>