http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/library_babel_fish/women_and_wikipedia
Where is this from? "Many Wikipedians say anyone can contribute, so women are to blame if they don't contribute more." That's a terribly painful thing to hear and I'd probably physical injure anyone who said something like that.
Check out the comments as well.
http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/library_babel_fish/women_and_wikipedia
Where is this from? "Many Wikipedians say anyone can contribute, so women are to blame if they don't contribute more." That's a terribly painful thing to hear and I'd probably physical injure anyone who said something like that.
Check out the comments as well.
-- Sarah Stierch Consulting Historical, cultural & artistic research, advising & event planning.
It does take confidence and courage to contribute.
My experience with my mother, who lacked confidence, was that she was easily discouraged, but also easily encouraged when she had social support.
Fred
On Feb 4, 2011, at 11:39 AM, Sarah Stierch wrote:
http://www.insidehighered.com/blogs/library_babel_fish/women_and_wikipedia
Where is this from? "Many Wikipedians say anyone can contribute, so women are to blame if they don't contribute more." That's a terribly painful thing to hear and I'd probably physical injure anyone who said something like that.
Check out the comments as well.
-- 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
Sarah, I think she's referring to a general argument about meritocracies and open communities rather than any specific comment made by a Wikipedian, though I'm sure it's been said in some form or another in many places.
Joseph Reagle's op-ed explains this argument further I think: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikip...
Steven Walling Fellow at the Wikimedia Foundation wikimediafoundation.org
On Friday, February 04, 2011, Steven Walling wrote:
Joseph Reagle's op-ed explains this argument further I think: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikip...
I think that argument is often implicit, though, I haven't heard it expressed explicitly by any Wikipedians. *But* you can find plenty of examples of this argument explicitly in response to the NYT's article itself.
For example, on the rather huge set of comments on a "anti-genderist" site:
It makes me happy to know that men are dominating the internet and women have absolutely no excuses. What are they going to do? Silence men to ensure equal representation?
Or elsewhere:
The NYT article below sees everything but the obvious in the fact that few women contribute to Wikipedia: That men are more interested in facts and women more interested in socio-emotional relationships. Men and women are the same, you see: Feminist bulldust. The fact that Wikpedia is voluntary and open to all DEMONSTRATES that men and women have inherently different interests. There is no oppressive "patriarchy" refusing to hire them
Yes, some women have chosen not to make contributions for various reasons or lack of interest, we all know that. But, I also won't fall for the concept that it's "our fault" (as a woman). I also think it's funny that people really do believe women don't have interest in "the facts."
Surprises me when female involvement in liberal arts studies are growing, for example, check out museum industry - an industry that is dominated by women. The majority of history classes I take are now full of women, and women's involvement in the sciences continues to grow as well. Again, it really surprises me that people think women aren't in it for the facts.
But, perhaps the fact that I don't read studies on that stuff says something. :)
I'd really like to start branching out into the internet and offline communities to see what womens thoughts are. I think we should seriously consider interviews or a more experience oriented research study about those who identify as females and what their experiences are - why and why they don't "do" Wikipedia. I think it'd shed a lot more light than numbers and non-sourced quotes. I will gladly assist in forming a research team for this.
Feminist "bulldust." Charming!
On 2/4/2011 4:19 PM, Joseph Reagle wrote:
On Friday, February 04, 2011, Steven Walling wrote:
Joseph Reagle's op-ed explains this argument further I think: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikip...
I think that argument is often implicit, though, I haven't heard it expressed explicitly by any Wikipedians. *But* you can find plenty of examples of this argument explicitly in response to the NYT's article itself.
For example, on the rather huge set of comments on a "anti-genderist" site:
It makes me happy to know that men are dominating the internet and women have absolutely no excuses. What are they going to do? Silence men to ensure equal representation?
Or elsewhere:
The NYT article below sees everything but the obvious in the fact that few women contribute to Wikipedia: That men are more interested in facts and women more interested in socio-emotional relationships. Men and women are the same, you see: Feminist bulldust. The fact that Wikpedia is voluntary and open to all DEMONSTRATES that men and women have inherently different interests. There is no oppressive "patriarchy" refusing to hire them
Gendergap mailing list Gendergap@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
/
On Friday, February 04, 2011, Steven Walling wrote: For example, on the rather huge set of comments on a "anti-genderist" site:
It makes me happy to know that men are dominating the internet and women have absolutely no excuses. What are they going to do? Silence men to ensure equal representation?
Or elsewhere:
The NYT article below sees everything but the obvious in the fact that few women contribute to Wikipedia: That men are more interested in facts and women more interested in socio-emotional relationships. Men and women are the same, you see: Feminist bulldust. The fact that Wikpedia is voluntary and open to all DEMONSTRATES that men and women have inherently different interests. There is no oppressive "patriarchy" refusing to hire them
This is actually a thread of response to the gender gap stories that I find troubling: people interpreting the gender gap on Wikipedia as evidence to suggest that gender gaps in paid contexts are "natural," rather than ever attributable to (for example) workplace bias or discrimination. I think that's a huge leap to make, and it irritates me to see our situation used to support it.
Having said that: it's a side note, and not really germane to our actual conversation here. So I'll leave it at that :-)
On Fri, Feb 4, 2011 at 1:19 PM, Joseph Reagle joseph.2008@reagle.org wrote:
On Friday, February 04, 2011, Steven Walling wrote:
Joseph Reagle's op-ed explains this argument further I think: http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2011/02/02/where-are-the-women-in-wikip...
I think that argument is often implicit, though, I haven't heard it expressed explicitly by any Wikipedians. *But* you can find plenty of examples of this argument explicitly in response to the NYT's article itself.
Implicit and long-standing in a lot of discussions, I'd say.
And a more complicated issue than it appears for Wikipedia, too. There is of course a long-standing principle (in our culture, in many wikis) of {{sofixit}} -- meaning, you can edit any page right now, go for it, you can fix it yourself if it's broken -- and I'd argue that principle, whether articulated or not, is deeply fundamental to the success of our projects and a core part of Wikipedia. It's even our tagline: "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Anyone means you: that's the point.
So it's easy enough to extrapolate the idea. Something's broken? So fix it. Not enough women are editing? So fix it. Why aren't you editing? etc. But I think there's a negative and a positive way to say and to mean this: "it's your fault" rather than "you're empowered to help".
-- phoebe