--I second Sarah's proposal to research why women don't contribute to Wikipedia. I have some ideas as to how we can do this using social media to branch out and evaluating email threads to look for repetitive themes. Because the opposite of the negative does not necessarily equal the positive, it is also important to look at the converse of that question, so we ask: What makes women contribute to Wikipedia?
Yeah, we really need a Task Force for this. We can utilize online survey systems, analysis, and I do like your idea of using social media as well. Give people a platform, they'll give you their opinions :)
I have a second thought to chime in here. We have strong evidence to believe that the limited diversity of WP editors limits the content of Wikipedia and we know that new articles are not being created at the rate they were 3-4 years ago. Is it possible that the limited content has an effect on the editors who participate? For example, suppose a potential woman editor wants to work on an article about Charlotte Ray, the first black woman lawyer. But there is not even a stub for Charlotte, so our editor tries to create the article, but it is immediately tagged for deletion for notability reasons. Having heard from many new editors, it is incredibly common that the initial contact with Wikipedia is that their article is deleted. I'm proposing that existing content is limited by the ideas of what the majority of the current community believes is notable, and it is difficult for new editors to earn the reputation within Wikipedia to influence this. So in effect the current content is limiting what new editors can contribute, and I suspect this is a major stumbling block for new women editors
I TOTALLY agree. If you search on Wikipedia and don't find the person or thing you're looking for, it's easy to just give up and move along. The "Stub" idea is one direction we have taken WikiProject: Public Art. I am a firm believer in "if you build it, they will come." And it happens - when I write an article or a stub about a public art sculpture people start to get involved, they claim it. I use Twitter and Facebook to post about my new articles, sharing them with neighborhoods and those involved in the community or museum or institution that might have some value put into the work of art - and it starts flying. Viewership goes up, people ask how they can contribute, and it encourages just what we want - expansion of information and sharing of knowledge.
I also notice that the project we did with the Indiana Statehouse, which we asked students in a museum collections management class to research, locate, and photograph every work of art in the Indiana Statehouse. The majority of those contributors were women, I'd love to find out how many will continue to contribute - especially now that they were recognized by the State for their work! (http://richardmccoy.tumblr.com/post/3093430185/today-at-the-indiana-state-ho...)
I don't see any reason why we can't start reaching out to the University Ambassadorship programs to perhaps invoke more female involvement. "Women Who Wiki" (and this can be extended of course to individuals who identify as women in any way)
If we have interest in expanding on "women's topics" we can work with classes that focus on women's studies, GLBT issues, history, etc - why not build a Task Force to focus entirely on broadening the WOMAN on Wikipedia? If everyone on this mailing list created one stub about a woman, a woman's issue, etc, we'd sure make an impact :)
Sarah
-Amy
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap