On Friday, February 04, 2011, Steven Walling wrote:
Joseph Reagle's op-ed explains this argument further I think: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikipedia/open-doesnt-include-everyone
I think that argument is often implicit, though, I haven't heard it expressed explicitly by any Wikipedians. *But* you can find plenty of examples of this argument explicitly in response to the NYT's article itself.
For example, on the rather huge set of comments on a "anti-genderist" site:
It makes me happy to know that men are dominating the internet and women have absolutely no excuses. What are they going to do? Silence men to ensure equal representation?
Or elsewhere:
The NYT article below sees everything but the obvious in the fact that few women contribute to Wikipedia: That men are more interested in facts and women more interested in socio-emotional relationships. Men and women are the same, you see: Feminist bulldust. The fact that Wikpedia is voluntary and open to all DEMONSTRATES that men and women have inherently different interests. There is no oppressive "patriarchy" refusing to hire them
_______________________________________________
Gendergap mailing list
Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
/--
Sarah Stierch
Consulting
Historical, cultural
& artistic research, advising & event planning.
------------------------------------------------------