I wrote a piece for Mashable and mentioned the wikipedia gender issue and the focus for the foundation! Search Stereotypes: What Web Content Reveals About Cultural Biaseshttp://mashable.com/2011/08/23/search-cultural-bias/
Maybe I am too theoretical, or too closely linked with the world of education, but it seems to me that there might be a confusion on that list about the kind of participation to encourage.
The kind of women I know are mostly teachers, or doctors, or work in research institutes. They are perfectly able to write about scientific subjects, and it seems to me that kind of participation would benefit the cause more than stating they need to see girly stuff to feel entitled to participate. They are not teenagers.
For instance an article about the pelagic ecosystem doesn't seem to me very gender-oriented.
And for personal preferences there are personal blogs...
Arnaud
Arnaud,
I'm assuming you're referring to the research that expresses that "girly stuff" like Sex in the City and make-up has poor coverage on Wikipedia. It's true, these things don't have good coverage on Wikipedia, and, they are often topics of interest to mainstream women.
As someone who works within the world of research (when I'm not traveling, I'm often huddled around dusty books, handwritten letters, and computers researching work for museum exhibitions), I also surround myself with women who are scholars by default due to the industry I work in. I also have no desire to write about make up, fashion, and I think Sex in the City is stupid (I'll take Annie Hall and David Lynch, thanks). So I understand :)
So, when I read these reviews and articles about "girly topics" not being covered in Wikipedia like "guy topics" I often say "yeah, it's true, but..." And I often feel like researchers are stereotyping women by using these topics as examples. For me, it's more disturbing knowing that the majority of editors to the menstrual cycle article are men. It's weird, actually, to me. Funny, weird, and, well...weird. I think the same goes for the article vagina? I don't remember.
I assure you, just because some blogs, and researchers are emphasizing that "girly topics" are not being covered, doesn't mean that staff and volunteers (like me) aren't concerned about Wikimedia content as whole when it comes to women contributing. For me, it's about encouraging people to contribute quality content about things they love, no matter what it is. And I assume I'm not the only genetic female who often goes "ugh" about Sex in the City and Kate Middleton's wedding dress. (They have their place, but, it's not in my repertoire). (Sorry to any women on this list who are fans, it's just...not my thing.)
For me, the goal is about encouraging women to contribute to Wikimedia projects in whatever ways they wish, about whatever topic they wish. And if it's about soap operas and lipgloss, so be it. And if it's about punk rock and nuclear fission, even better!
-Sarah
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Arnaud HERVE arnaudherve@x-mail.netwrote:
Maybe I am too theoretical, or too closely linked with the world of education, but it seems to me that there might be a confusion on that list about the kind of participation to encourage.
The kind of women I know are mostly teachers, or doctors, or work in research institutes. They are perfectly able to write about scientific subjects, and it seems to me that kind of participation would benefit the cause more than stating they need to see girly stuff to feel entitled to participate. They are not teenagers.
For instance an article about the pelagic ecosystem doesn't seem to me very gender-oriented.
And for personal preferences there are personal blogs...
Arnaud
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
The coverage reminds one also of the sexism that continues throughout the media...
On 8/24/2011 1:31 PM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
Arnaud,
I'm assuming you're referring to the research that expresses that "girly stuff" like Sex in the City and make-up has poor coverage on Wikipedia. It's true, these things don't have good coverage on Wikipedia, and, they are often topics of interest to mainstream women.
As someone who works within the world of research (when I'm not traveling, I'm often huddled around dusty books, handwritten letters, and computers researching work for museum exhibitions), I also surround myself with women who are scholars by default due to the industry I work in. I also have no desire to write about make up, fashion, and I think Sex in the City is stupid (I'll take Annie Hall and David Lynch, thanks). So I understand :)
So, when I read these reviews and articles about "girly topics" not being covered in Wikipedia like "guy topics" I often say "yeah, it's true, but..." And I often feel like researchers are stereotyping women by using these topics as examples. For me, it's more disturbing knowing that the majority of editors to the menstrual cycle article are men. It's weird, actually, to me. Funny, weird, and, well...weird. I think the same goes for the article vagina? I don't remember.
I assure you, just because some blogs, and researchers are emphasizing that "girly topics" are not being covered, doesn't mean that staff and volunteers (like me) aren't concerned about Wikimedia content as whole when it comes to women contributing. For me, it's about encouraging people to contribute quality content about things they love, no matter what it is. And I assume I'm not the only genetic female who often goes "ugh" about Sex in the City and Kate Middleton's wedding dress. (They have their place, but, it's not in my repertoire). (Sorry to any women on this list who are fans, it's just...not my thing.)
For me, the goal is about encouraging women to contribute to Wikimedia projects in whatever ways they wish, about whatever topic they wish. And if it's about soap operas and lipgloss, so be it. And if it's about punk rock and nuclear fission, even better!
-Sarah
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Arnaud HERVE <arnaudherve@x-mail.net mailto:arnaudherve@x-mail.net> wrote:
Maybe I am too theoretical, or too closely linked with the world of education, but it seems to me that there might be a confusion on that list about the kind of participation to encourage. The kind of women I know are mostly teachers, or doctors, or work in research institutes. They are perfectly able to write about scientific subjects, and it seems to me that kind of participation would benefit the cause more than stating they need to see girly stuff to feel entitled to participate. They are not teenagers. For instance an article about the pelagic ecosystem doesn't seem to me very gender-oriented. And for personal preferences there are personal blogs... Arnaud
Maybe I am too theoretical, or too closely linked with the world of education, but it seems to me that there might be a confusion on that list about the kind of participation to encourage.
The kind of women I know are mostly teachers, or doctors, or work in research institutes. They are perfectly able to write about scientific subjects, and it seems to me that kind of participation would benefit the cause more than stating they need to see girly stuff to feel entitled to participate. They are not teenagers.
For instance an article about the pelagic ecosystem doesn't seem to me very gender-oriented.
And for personal preferences there are personal blogs...
Arnaud
This list is about exploring any issue which might discourage any sort of woman from editing and facilitating any change which might encourage any woman to edit.
We want people to feel welcome. We want them to be able to start editing productively with minimum fuss and to be treated appropriately should there be conflict.
I think there is an issue with visualizing women editors as geeks, most women don't see themselves that way, and those that do are probably already editing. So it needs to be clear that anything any woman is interested in is fair game for editing.
Fred