On Thu, Jun 7, 2012 at 3:10 AM, Laura Hale laura@fanhistory.com wrote:

Hi,

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/ipad/female-athletes-deserve-better/story-fn6bn8... is a story that has been making the rounds in Australia for a while now about an elite sportwoman who plays top level soccer and cricket, but while competing at the top, is unable to make a living because neither one pays enough.  Those in sporting institutions are demanding she give up one or another.

Is there a way that Wikipedia can be used in a neutral way to address systematic bias? Does drawing attention to women in fields by bringing them to the front page of Wikipedia through ITN, DYK and FAC help address this by meerly normalising the existence of women in these areas?  Does getting more pictures address it?  Is this a topic better suited by sharing this information on Wikinews through reporting on these issues independent of the main stream media? or uploading documents to Wikisource to help provide historical information?  Does it get solved by providing more examples of women to counter systematic bias of images of only men doing certain tasks?

Sincerely, Laura Hale

I've always thought that this sort of issue is one of the most important reasons that we need to find ways to address the content gaps caused by our demographically skewed base. Wikipedia has reached a point where it's the primary (or at least initial) source of information for hundreds of millions of people - if something is missing in Wikipedia then in a real sense it doesn't exist (or at least exists less, if that makes any sense) for much of the world.

By creating, encouraging the creation of, or recruiting new editors likely to engage in the creation of, the type of article that we currently lack - such as articles about women's sports, concepts/perspectives from academic disciplines like gender studies or ethnic studies, or women authors - we are doing something that will result in the (slow, gradual) normalisation and increased knowledge and acceptance of these sort of things (if we don't fuck up everything.) It's not the kind of thing that will show overnight results - or even necessarily serious results this decade - but I think that it will be critically important for the long-term advancement of these issues.

I think that, in this regard, Wikipedia work is more important than Wikisource or Wikinews work generally speaking. For better or for worse Wikinews is currently of limited reach; most people haven't heard of it, and its cultural impact is far less than that of Wikipedia. Wikisource is an awesome project but has a limited audience by it's very nature, and I don't think that in this specific way its general cultural impact can match that of Wikipedia's.

---- User:Kevin Gorman