<div>Very well said! </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Neither women nor men are a monolithic group, and any attempt to treat them as such would be a mistake. The same could be said for members of other groups from whom increased contribution would be desireable (e.g. people from the Southern Hemispere). Making it clear that members of those groups are welcomed and needed is important. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Aleta<br><br></div>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Susan Spencer <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:susan.spencer@gmail.com">susan.spencer@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote style="BORDER-LEFT: #ccc 1px solid; MARGIN: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; PADDING-LEFT: 1ex" class="gmail_quote">Oliver makes a very good point about<br>statements regarding 'men think _____'.<br><br>Statements of 'women are/do/think _____ '<br>
are distracting, plus they're usually<br>at their baseline, insulting. <br>It's the overgeneralization, and the mind-<br>reading implicit in these statements<br>that render them counter-productive. <br><br>The actions recently initiated <br>
by independent groups<br>to invite women to participate <br>in Wikipedia are wonderful.<br><br>These events announce<br>that women are wanted and<br>accepted as experts, and will<br>be supported as such by <br>Wikipedia.<br>
A successful campaign effort <br>could be as conceptually simple <br>as a continous PR push to invite<br>women are to participate. No<br>need to bog down so much in the<br>why. Do the research, and act<br>on it, but go ahead with the <br>
active recruitment.<br><br>All people at their foundation seek<br>pleasure and avoid pain (I don't mean <br>this in a shallow way). Letting<br>women know that Wikipedia is working <br>to make contribution a less-than-painful <br>
endeavor may prove to be the<br>majority of the battle, although it would<br>take a campaign that lasts more than a month.<br>One month to kick off a year-long campaign is certainly<br>appropriate. A year-long campaign is also <br>
appropriate because we need to reach<br>50% of the population! The heterogeneity<br>inherit in such a large population means<br>that many of the results returned from <br>studies will apply to one sector but not<br>the rest. Therefore the invitation to <br>
contribute will most likely be the<br>most effective approach. Any approach <br>based on 'women are ___' will be cultural,<br>will be expensive to determine,<br>and will apply to subsets of women,<br>and not to the majority of<br>
women worldwide, outside of the <br>change in women's status during the <br>last 150 years. It's nice to be able to<br>own a business, and it's nice that<br>it's no longer legal for a husband to <br>beat his wife with a stick (rule of thumb!)<br>
in most places where I could easily<br>travel.<br>:D<br><br>I'm not saying to cease investigation<br>for solutions to Wikipedia's issues.<br>The areas of proposed investigation<br>are all worthwhile. And totalled up<br>
the results will benefit everyone, not<br>just women, as the current state of <br>these areas are offensive (content) <br>disenfranchising (inappropriate editing), <br>or barriers to contribution (interface) to<br>both men and women.<br>
<br>The historical reasons for the lower percentage<br>of women in science and technology <br>are mostly the same reasons women aren't<br>participating on Wikipedia. There will<br>be a few differences, but on the whole<br>
moving forward is just as important<br>as studying why. The studying why<br>is very expensive, and has been going<br>on for decades. Let's just get on with<br>it, and put out the PR that we are<br>celebrating and requesting women's<br>
participation as experts on the <br>Wikipedia site.<br><br>- Susan</blockquote></div>