On 7/7/11 7:17 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
I think we need to start thinking of "potential female editors" as not only housewives, or moms. Which seems to be constantly a theme. If the housewife mother isnt editing...who could be?
The more outreach that continues (i.e. Public policy) to get funded, or is practically grassroots (GLAM) can help bring more women who will MAKE time to contribute. Everyday I get an email (no joke) during my residency at the Smithsonian from someone, usually a woman, interested in WP.
Yes! I can't emphasize this enough. The gender imbalance is symptomatic of the wider systemic bias on Wikipedia and lack of true diversity of interests and viewpoints. Though I am a male, as a non-techie working in the humanities and interested in things like libraries and non-American/European culture, I also sometimes feel like a sort of minority on Wikipedia. These are obviously related issues, because there is a real-world gender imbalance in fields like math and sciences in one direction, and, for example, in my field, library science, in the other.
I work with professional women every day whose careers are in the world of information. They are avid Twitterers, expert Flickrites, Facebook fiends, and Foursquare addicts. At my library science grad program, everyone knows how to use MediaWiki, as it is used internally for classes. And yet, for whatever reason, Wikipedia is just not part of their skill set. That is what needs to change. There is clearly no lack of dedication or ability among such people.
Dominic