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,
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
(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!
On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 10:16 AM, Arnaud HERVE <arnaudherve(a)x-mail.net>wrote;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
And for personal preferences there are personal blogs...
Gendergap mailing list
GLAMWIKI Partnership Ambassador for the Wikimedia
Wikipedian-in-Residence, Archives of American
Sarah Stierch Consulting
*Historical, cultural & artistic research & advising.*