And of all the emails sent recently on this list, this is probably my
favorite :) Thank you to Delphine for asking the question. Thank you to
Sandy to give it a try to answer.
Some emails on this list have been giving good points and good
suggestions, but I do not think venting the various frustrations we have
met on Wikipedia or in our professional life or in our personal life is
going to really make for a big change.
My view would rather be that we indeed start with asking ourselves the
question "What would women bring to Wikipedia ? Would that help us in
our big dream to get more women participation ? "
- Because if the answer is "we need more women to reach our goal of
collecting and bringing knowledge to the world", great.
- If the answer is "we need more women because equality should require
that we have a 50%-50% men-women", then we fail. Making sure women are
respected, listened to, involved, blablabla, is great. But that's not
what we are collectively looking for. Our goal is not gender equality,
right ?
Second, once we have identified the reason for more participation (if we
have agreed it would be helpful), then we should identify what would be
the indicators for success. Because again, forgive me for being bold...
but if we set up an official goal of say-25% participation of women...
then it means that what we are currently doing is working toward a goal
of more "men-women equality". I personally do not care for this goal. I
am here on Wikipedia to allow every one to have access to a complete,
accurate, uptodate, neutral information. So, a goal of "more women" or a
goal of "at least 25% women contributors" makes no sense to me.
If "improve the breadth of our articles" is our goal (to make sure
lipstick and russian women biographies are properly covered), then set
up a goal with regards to "content breadth". And implement a tracking
system to follow evolution.
If "50% of women readers in north african countries" is our goal, then
set up a goal with regards to "readership stats". And implement a
tracking system to follow "readership stats".
If "getting good PR so that the press loves us and so that big
foundations give us cash" is our goal, then set up a goal with regards
to "25% women participation". And implement a tracking system to follow
women participation and buzz the results.
But as long as we do not know what our "goals" are, it is weird to
define indicators of success and weird to rely on stats that carry
little significance.
Third, when goals and indicators are set up (and perhaps different
groups will have different goals and indicators), then it will be time
to foster the best conditions so that this happens over time. Some will
choose a totally western strategy and organize "women day", "women
awards", "special projects for women". Others will choose a more
let-it-be strategy, merely avoiding the least favorable paths and
influencing to get us on favorable paths. Usually, Wikipedians strategy
is rather of the second type.
For those who understand French, I have blogged on the topic here:
http://www.anthere.org/post/2011/02/09/Wikipedia%2C-les-femmes-et-la-philos…
Anthere
On 2/8/11 2:13 PM, Sandra ordonez wrote:
Now that I've vented, I've been thinking of
Delphine's original
question(s) regarding the why...this is what i came up with. *
1) Improve the quality of information.* Information is shaped by
perspective, regardless of how NPOV you aim to be, and perspective is
shaped by experience. When you experience the world in a certain
perspective, you see things that others don't see. A Chinese immigrant
in the United States may notice things that a American born may not
see, just like it is very likely that a female may notice things their
male counterparts don't see.
*
2) Open doors to more groups*.The inclusion of women might have a
domino affect, and open doors for other groups, particularly those
that are traditionally dis-empowered, such as people of color in the
United States. (You can include whatever other group you want here..I
can only speak to the US).
*
3) Improved processes and systems.* Collaboration is improved by
diversity - everyone in this group knows this. More female
participation may result in better collaborative brainstorming and
problem solvin.
*4) Better organization.* Studies reveal that women tend to be great
multi-taskers. IMHO, women are great multitaskers because they also
plan their world to be more "efficient" for multitasking. I can
totally see a group of women helping improve the organization of
Wikipedia's rules, background knowledge, presentation, etc.
*5) Stronger community. *Reports are also showing that more women than
men are on social media. This is because women tend to focus on
creating community. A larger, more sophisticated Wikipedian community
is so powerful, I'm not even sure how to describe its potential in
words. However, it would have the ability to help the projects but
bring change worldwide.
*
6) Better image. *Organizations that are ethical are usually favored
and respected by society, which increase's an org's success. I am not
talking "left vs right," and this is not a philosophical question, it
is a public relations one. Talk to any PR practioner and they can
share why this works, and examples of organizations taking this PR
strategy. And, at a minimum, I can guarantee it will increase how
many women worldwide see the project, which btw are 50% of the world's
population.
*7) Better parties and possibly more Wikilove!* As corny as it sounds,
I am quite positive that more women will improve the festivities in
any wiki get together, and possibly result in more wikilove :) lolol
Why not!! What a perfect place to meet someone that shares your
interest, and better parties are usually always welcomed.
*8) A better world society.* Wikipedia has this ability to affect the
world and start revolutions in what seems to be very silent but
effective ways. I really believe that the inclusion of women will have
amazing revolutionary affects on the world, and make it better.
Channeling Jeff Bridges, "information is really power, man." And maybe
we have come to take for granted that the world is informed/educated
through wikipedia on a daily basis. This has an effect.
*9) Its the right thing to do.* Wikipedia has always gone against the
grain, even though at times it ruffled society's feathers b/c
transparency in knowledge sharing is more important than the agenda of
any group. Its part of the free culture movement, dedicated to
empowering people worldwide, and has done much in that area. Why
wouldn't it come together now to improve on this systematic problem
that affects not only the project, but humans at large.
*
10) Who else is going to do it? *No one has the ability to look and
tackle this complex issue like Wikipedian community. No other
community has the strength in numbers, intellect, and structure to
address an issue like this. I guarantee that other groups will embrace
any solutions the community finds, b/c its not Wikipedia is not only a
pioneer, but its a "best-in-breed" virtual project that comes up with
"best-in-breed" solutions.
--
Sandra Ordonez
Web Astronaut
"Helping you rock out in the virtual world."
*www.collaborativenation.com <http://www.collaborativenation.com>*
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap