Oliver makes a very good point about
statements regarding 'men think _____'.
Statements of 'women are/do/think _____ '
are distracting, plus they're usually
at their baseline, insulting.
It's the overgeneralization, and the mind-
reading implicit in these statements
that render them counter-productive.
The actions recently initiated
by independent groups
to invite women to participate
in Wikipedia are wonderful.
These events announce
that women are wanted and
accepted as experts, and will
be supported as such by
Wikipedia.
A successful campaign effort
could be as conceptually simple
as a continous PR push to invite
women are to participate. No
need to bog down so much in the
why. Do the research, and act
on it, but go ahead with the
active recruitment.
All people at their foundation seek
pleasure and avoid pain (I don't mean
this in a shallow way). Letting
women know that Wikipedia is working
to make contribution a less-than-painful
endeavor may prove to be the
majority of the battle, although it would
take a campaign that lasts more than a month.
One month to kick off a year-long campaign is certainly
appropriate. A year-long campaign is also
appropriate because we need to reach
50% of the population! The heterogeneity
inherit in such a large population means
that many of the results returned from
studies will apply to one sector but not
the rest. Therefore the invitation to
contribute will most likely be the
most effective approach. Any approach
based on 'women are ___' will be cultural,
will be expensive to determine,
and will apply to subsets of women,
and not to the majority of
women worldwide, outside of the
change in women's status during the
last 150 years. It's nice to be able to
own a business, and it's nice that
it's no longer legal for a husband to
beat his wife with a stick (rule of thumb!)
in most places where I could easily
travel.
:D
I'm not saying to cease investigation
for solutions to Wikipedia's issues.
The areas of proposed investigation
are all worthwhile. And totalled up
the results will benefit everyone, not
just women, as the current state of
these areas are offensive (content)
disenfranchising (inappropriate editing),
or barriers to contribution (interface) to
both men and women.
The historical reasons for the lower percentage
of women in science and technology
are mostly the same reasons women aren't
participating on Wikipedia. There will
be a few differences, but on the whole
moving forward is just as important
as studying why. The studying why
is very expensive, and has been going
on for decades. Let's just get on with
it, and put out the PR that we are
celebrating and requesting women's
participation as experts on the
Wikipedia site.
- Susan