To me, article differentials like this are one of the most interesting manifestations of the gender gap, and are worth talking about on this list. Content that deals primarily with women is systematically underdeveloped throughout the projects, and that is a big deal. The gendergap would still be disturbing even if this weren't the case - but to me at least, the systemic underdevelopment of content is probably the single most worrisome issue involved.
I conduct physical outreach about gendergap issues in the bay area on a regular basis - I think I have five talks/lectures/brownbags currently scheduled in the next month and a half. This sort of example is great, because it helps people understand why Wikimedia's massive demographic gaps are a serious problem. Obviously a single example can't prove a systemic problem, but using concrete examples makes the issue much more real to some people than just saying "According to researchers at NYU, we're XX% more likely to be missing important biographies of women than Britannica is." I usually mention the hairdresser/barber example, and it's probably been more effective at generating interest than any other single thing I've mentioned - at this point I'm getting emails from people I've never met who want to get involved after having had that example relayed to them by people who I have talked to.
So, thanks Sarah, this specific example will work itself in to a talk in the near future :)
---- Kevin Gorman User:Kgorman-ucb