On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Laura Hale <laura(a)fanhistory.com> wrote:
Hi,
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/female-athletes-deserve-better/story-fn6bn…
is a story that has been making the rounds in Australia for a while now
about an elite sportwoman who plays top level soccer and cricket, but while
competing at the top, is unable to make a living because neither one pays
enough. Those in sporting institutions are demanding she give up one or
another.
Is there a way that Wikipedia can be used in a neutral way to address
systematic bias? Does drawing attention to women in fields by bringing them
to the front page of Wikipedia through ITN, DYK and FAC help address this by
meerly normalising the existence of women in these areas? Does getting more
pictures address it? Is this a topic better suited by sharing this
information on Wikinews through reporting on these issues independent of the
main stream media? or uploading documents to Wikisource to help provide
historical information? Does it get solved by providing more examples of
women to counter systematic bias of images of only men doing certain tasks?
Sincerely,
Laura Hale
I've always thought that this sort of issue is one of the most
important reasons that we need to find ways to address the content
gaps caused by our demographically skewed base. Wikipedia has reached
a point where it's the primary (or at least initial) source of
information for hundreds of millions of people - if something is
missing in Wikipedia then in a real sense it doesn't exist (or at
least exists less, if that makes any sense) for much of the world.
By creating, encouraging the creation of, or recruiting new editors
likely to engage in the creation of, the type of article that we
currently lack - such as articles about women's sports,
concepts/perspectives from academic disciplines like gender studies or
ethnic studies, or women authors - we are doing something that will
result in the (slow, gradual) normalisation and increased knowledge
and acceptance of these sort of things (if we don't fuck up
everything.) It's not the kind of thing that will show overnight
results - or even necessarily serious results this decade - but I
think that it will be critically important for the long-term
advancement of these issues.
I think that, in this regard, Wikipedia work is more important than
Wikisource or Wikinews work generally speaking. For better or for
worse Wikinews is currently of limited reach; most people haven't
heard of it, and its cultural impact is far less than that of
Wikipedia. Wikisource is an awesome project but has a limited
audience by it's very nature, and I don't think that in this specific
way its general cultural impact can match that of Wikipedia's.
----
User:Kevin Gorman