On 2/3/11 4:55 AM, Delphine Ménard wrote: 
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Fred Bauder <fredbaud@fairpoint.net> wrote:


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?

Why should they?

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.

1) Greater female participation is good for Wikipedia's quality;
2) Greater female participation is good for Wikipedia's editing experience; and
3) Greater female participation is good for women and/or society (i.e., empowerment)

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).

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.

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 for women (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 for society (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.

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.

Dominic