On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Fred Bauder fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The question remains: Why don't more women edit even those articles that we know women are interested in? And is there anything we can do to facilitate more participation?
Why should they?
Take this as a provocative question, but seriously, why should "women edit even those articles that we know women are interested in?"
And to broaden the question, why is it that we want more women to edit Wikipedia? What does it bring? What is missing if they don't?
I think this should probably be our very first question. It's been given some answers in many emails on this list already, but I think that a brainstorming thread dedicated to the question might trigger some interesting responses.
Delphine
2011/2/3 Delphine Ménard notafishz@gmail.com:
Take this as a provocative question, but seriously, why should "women edit even those articles that we know women are interested in?"
And to broaden the question, why is it that we want more women to edit Wikipedia? What does it bring? What is missing if they don't?
I think that it's a resource for solving other problems, for example - http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Product_Whitepaper#Fewer_people_join_the_...
On 2/3/11 4:55 AM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Fred Bauderfredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
The question remains: Why don't more women edit even those articles that we know women are interested in? And is there anything we can do to facilitate more participation?
Why should they?
This is a good point, and I have been surprised in talking about this issue before that not everyone (even with full knowledge of the gender disparity) even necessarily identifies it as a problem. To me, there are at least three important points, which people probably agree with or value to different extents.
1) Greater female participation is good for Wikipedia's quality; 2) Greater female participation is good for Wikipedia's editing experience; and 3) Greater female participation is good for women and/or society (i.e., empowerment)
I think all three of these are good reasons, but, perhaps counterintuitively, I actually think the latter two are most important. While I definitely believe that more women (and other types of increased editor diversity) will improve Wikipedia's quality in terms of coverage, tone, and balance, the eventualist wiki-theorist in me believes that the wiki model can somehow overcome systemic bias of all types even if there is never perfect representation of all groups. To make a related point, we shouldn't want women only for the improvement of coverage of female perspectives and topics, just as we don't value men only for their male-oriented editing (not that there are such clear categories, but that is another debate).
As an editor, the prospect of #2 most excites me, since I enjoy diversity of perspectives and experiences in the communities in which I participate, and even think that a greater female voice will have a positive aspect on the atmosphere of the project. Also, to make the obvious point, it is harder to identify and police aspects of the editing community that are unfavorable or unwelcoming to women without women.
I include the third point because, as a social good, women should become equal partners in the production of cultural works. I thought it's important that we not lose sight of that fact; while most of the rationales people have raised here and in the media have focused pragmatically on the effects female participation will have on the project, the idea of full participation in all aspects of society is as much about what that will do /for women/ (in countering marginalization and building up women's personal capacities through their sense of dignity, self-worth, and self-confidence) as it is about what women will do /for society/ (we don't necessarily expect achieving gender parity in the field of chemistry to lead to breakthroughs men are incapable of, but it's still a worthy goal). Someone versed in gender theory can probably make the last point more eloquently than me, but that may become a tangent.
Anyway, I'll stop there, except to say that while I am generally skeptical of the usefulness of pontificating on mailing lists (which isn't to say I don't enjoy it), I am happy to see this new effort and hope it will lead to real results.
Dominic
Why should they?
I really like that Delphine asked this simple question. I admit, it popped into my head as I scanned through emails talking about even the articles that women have "interest" in editing.
The fact that people would make a judgement calls and declare that women are into editing fashion articles, etc, is really bizarre to me. The first articles I ever edited were about European new wave bands, nor have I ever edited an article about make-up, children, "women's issues" or soap operas ;)
And to broaden the question, why is it that we want more women to edit Wikipedia? What does it bring? What is missing if they don't?
"What does it bring?" "What is missing if they don't?"
These are very valid questions, I also fear that stereotypes and bad "scientific studies" will be brought out to discuss it. It's like asking "why aren't African American editors editing African American topics?"
All legit, but, just makes me a little nervous..
Sarah
Why should they?
I really like that Delphine asked this simple question. I admit, it popped into my head as I scanned through emails talking about even the articles that women have "interest" in editing.
The fact that people would make a judgement calls and declare that women are into editing fashion articles, etc, is really bizarre to me. The first articles I ever edited were about European new wave bands, nor have I ever edited an article about make-up, children, "women's issues" or soap operas ;)
And to broaden the question, why is it that we want more women to edit Wikipedia? What does it bring? What is missing if they don't?
"What does it bring?" "What is missing if they don't?"
These are very valid questions, I also fear that stereotypes and bad "scientific studies" will be brought out to discuss it. It's like asking "why aren't African American editors editing African American topics?"
All legit, but, just makes me a little nervous..
Sarah
Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
You're right, of course, however there is such a thing as a womens magazine and its typical content. But maybe there is a generational element involved. I don't seem many young women reading those magazines. The matter of African Americans is interesting too, but raises different questions.
Fred
The fact that people would make a judgement calls and declare that women are into editing fashion articles, etc, is really bizarre to me. The first articles I ever edited were about European new wave bands, nor have I ever edited an article about make-up, children, "women's issues" or soap operas ;)
Sara, I wasn't declaring this, just following up on some observations the NYT article that prompted the creation of this list made (an observation that at least one female editor on the fashion project, as the diff I posted with it, seems to share). I don't expect any new editor on the project to focus on any specific topic area determined by immutable personal characteristics (though of course some will; that's human nature); many female editors I know (you included, as I learned sitting next to you all day at the National Archives) have as diverse an array of editing interests as I do. But, I would imagine, a higher percentage of female editors would probably result in more attention being paid to some otherwise neglected areas where the pool of informal expertise off-wiki has more women in it than men. Just as lifting the PRC block would bring more editors with some degree of knowledge to China-related topics (though that, of course, we can't really do anything about).
I would probably also posit that, currently, the overlap between women who thrive within the Wikipedia community and women who would primarily want to contribute primarily in the aforementioned topic areas is probably fairly small.
Daniel Case
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 12:24 AM, Sarah Stierch sarah@sarahstierch.com wrote:
Why should they?
I really like that Delphine asked this simple question. I admit, it popped into my head as I scanned through emails talking about even the articles that women have "interest" in editing.
The fact that people would make a judgement calls and declare that women are into editing fashion articles, etc, is really bizarre to me. The first articles I ever edited were about European new wave bands, nor have I ever edited an article about make-up, children, "women's issues" or soap operas ;)
And to broaden the question, why is it that we want more women to edit Wikipedia? What does it bring? What is missing if they don't?
"What does it bring?" "What is missing if they don't?"
These are very valid questions, I also fear that stereotypes and bad "scientific studies" will be brought out to discuss it. It's like asking "why aren't African American editors editing African American topics?"
Does your home wikipedia has no WP:COI?
/me ducks
But seriously that is a part of why we'd like more women; not only gender issues but also anything edited by male dominant editorship would remain in their male systematic bias, so we'd like more women. Likewise in the ideal world, we could say African American topics should not be edited by African American alone and that African American are expected to edit not only African American topics.
Cheers,
All legit, but, just makes me a little nervous..
Sarah
Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
http://www.sarahstierch.com/ _______________________________________________ Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap