It is a complex situation, and I think a little off topic. I don't know if there is anything here which will illuminate the gender bias and/or gender gap which we have on Wikipedia, or give insight as to how to approach better balance. Does any of this cause women to value themselves less? Do they do "cleanup" because they're used to it?
Do they, in fact, do more than their share of the "cleanup" here? The gender roles around here might not be what we expect.
Do they shy away from ArbCom or B'crat because they are non-confrontational? due to gender differences, or societal expectations (Pavlovian training)?
Is the gender ratio of b'crats or arbitrarors more male-biased than the gender ratio of sysops? Of course it's not easy to determine gender from username, but from a casual inspection of the lists, there don't seem to be that many female sysops to begin with. If that's right, there's a glass ceiling at or before RfA anyway.
Is the gender ratio of sysops different from the gender ratio of all RfA candidates? Should be easy to do a casual inspection at least.
Exercise for the reader.
Is the gender ratio of RfA candidates different than the ratio of regulars? Regulars versus casual users? Are female administrators more non-confrontational? Don't know.
Exercise for the masochistic reader.
The email which started this thread talked about "women's subjects" such as blow dryers and curling irons, and that was written by a female, yes? That's horrifying to me.
Maybe because chihuahuas hardly have any hair at all?
Dan
dmehkeri@swi.com wrote:
It is a complex situation, and I think a little off topic. I don't know if there is anything here which will illuminate the gender bias and/or gender gap which we have on Wikipedia, or give insight as to how to approach better balance. Does any of this cause women to value themselves less? Do they do "cleanup" because they're used to it?
Do they, in fact, do more than their share of the "cleanup" here? The gender roles around here might not be what we expect.
Do they shy away from ArbCom or B'crat because they are non-confrontational? due to gender differences, or societal expectations (Pavlovian training)?
Is the gender ratio of b'crats or arbitrarors more male-biased than the gender ratio of sysops? Of course it's not easy to determine gender from username, but from a casual inspection of the lists, there don't seem to be that many female sysops to begin with. If that's right, there's a glass ceiling at or before RfA anyway.
Is the gender ratio of sysops different from the gender ratio of all RfA candidates? Should be easy to do a casual inspection at least.
Exercise for the reader.
Is the gender ratio of RfA candidates different than the ratio of regulars? Regulars versus casual users? Are female administrators more non-confrontational? Don't know.
Exercise for the masochistic reader.
The email which started this thread talked about "women's subjects" such as blow dryers and curling irons, and that was written by a female, yes? That's horrifying to me.
Maybe because chihuahuas hardly have any hair at all?
Dan
All excellent points, especially the hair bias.
This is just one aspect of gender bias, and it seems people are focusing on cleaning rather than bias. I wrote about cleaning; I was attempting to illustrate underlying thought patterns and paradigms which led to the cleaning imbalance. It seems now the focus has moved to the cleaning, and that is my fault, I apologize for poor focus.
I had to evaluate a remote hosting site once and took along a subordinate male, and I would ask questions and he would get the explanation. At the end of the visit, the person at the hosting facility turned to the man and asked if he had any questions. Never asked me. The bias is real, it is pervasive, and it is a problem. Again, I am not sure how much this translates into how many women are editors, how many stand for Admin, B'Crat, Arbcom, etc. I don't think it affects the promotion ratio - but I haven't done the homework so I don't actually know. If it does affect the promotion ratio we still aren't looking at the underlying causes, which could range from gender bias in the wp-population at large, to lack of experience in the women on a larger scale - our entire society has fewer women in politics, roles of power, etc. We reflect that. Do we reflect it 1-for-1? Is the ratio more balanced, or less, than the society at large? I have no idea, would this be something which would be worth looking at?
-kc-
Puppy wrote:
[...] it seems people are focusing on cleaning rather than bias. I wrote about cleaning; I was attempting to illustrate underlying thought patterns and paradigms which led to the cleaning imbalance. It seems now the focus has moved to the cleaning, and that is my fault, I apologize for poor focus.
[[Systemic bias]] in the WP sense is more about article content and quality rather than editor activities; for instance, we have more extensive info on the presidents of the US than of Gabon, not as a conscious decision but as side effect of being anglophone instead of francophone, access to source material, etc. It seems tricky to identify systemic bias that is gender-specific but not based on incorrect stereotypes (puts me in mind of the old line about how there are only two jobs that are single-gender - wet nurse and sperm donor :-) ), but perhaps I'm unaware of articles that are obviously missing/stubly to others.
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Puppy wrote:
[...] it seems people are focusing on cleaning rather than bias. I wrote about cleaning; I was attempting to illustrate underlying thought patterns and paradigms which led to the cleaning imbalance. It seems now the focus has moved to the cleaning, and that is my fault, I apologize for poor focus.
[[Systemic bias]] in the WP sense is more about article content and quality rather than editor activities; for instance, we have more extensive info on the presidents of the US than of Gabon, not as a conscious decision but as side effect of being anglophone instead of francophone, access to source material, etc. It seems tricky to identify systemic bias that is gender-specific but not based on incorrect stereotypes (puts me in mind of the old line about how there are only two jobs that are single-gender - wet nurse and sperm donor :-) ), but perhaps I'm unaware of articles that are obviously missing/stubly to others.
Stan
Article quality and content reflect the bias of their authors; whether internal or external (access to sources, exposure to topics) that is the issue. Your example is of geographical/political bias. There is also religious bias (see my user page), and many other biases on Wikipedia. This thread is about gender bias, note the subject: wrt gender: as in, with regard to gender, ie; gender bias. It has expanded to note that there may be gender bias or at least gender imbalance within the editor pool on Wikipedia, and explored various possible reasons. Your email does not seem to be addressing any of that. I am not sure what you are saying with your email: are you saying that geopolitical bias is more rampant and deserves more attention than gender bias? Are you saying gender bias is hard to identify? Please clarify.
-kc-
On 11/22/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Stan Shebs wrote:
Puppy wrote:
[...] it seems people are focusing on cleaning rather than bias. I wrote about cleaning; I was attempting to illustrate underlying thought patterns and paradigms which led to the cleaning imbalance. It seems now the focus has moved to the cleaning, and that is my fault, I apologize for poor focus.
[[Systemic bias]] in the WP sense is more about article content and quality rather than editor activities; for instance, we have more extensive info on the presidents of the US than of Gabon, not as a conscious decision but as side effect of being anglophone instead of francophone, access to source material, etc. It seems tricky to identify systemic bias that is gender-specific but not based on incorrect stereotypes (puts me in mind of the old line about how there are only two jobs that are single-gender - wet nurse and sperm donor :-) ), but perhaps I'm unaware of articles that are obviously missing/stubly to others.
Stan
Article quality and content reflect the bias of their authors; whether internal or external (access to sources, exposure to topics) that is the issue. Your example is of geographical/political bias. There is also religious bias (see my user page), and many other biases on Wikipedia. This thread is about gender bias, note the subject: wrt gender: as in, with regard to gender, ie; gender bias. It has expanded to note that there may be gender bias or at least gender imbalance within the editor pool on Wikipedia, and explored various possible reasons. Your email does not seem to be addressing any of that. I am not sure what you are saying with your email: are you saying that geopolitical bias is more rampant and deserves more attention than gender bias? Are you saying gender bias is hard to identify? Please clarify.
-kc-
I would be curious; there's been a lot of hypothetical discussion on these points, but I haven't seen much in the way of Wikipedia specific gender bias issue claims made in the discussion.
I know it happens, in real life and in online discussions. I can see some areas where women might think the WP way of doing things was biased. But I would like to hear the specifics you are concerned about.
Thanks...
On 11/22/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Article quality and content reflect the bias of their authors; whether internal or external (access to sources, exposure to topics) that is the issue.
About the only time I was conscious of gender issues while editing was when I briefly tried to edit one of the abortion-related articles. The page was in the control of a few male editors, and they were very aggressive, and absolutely certain they knew best. It's one of the few occasions I've been genuinely angry when editing (as opposed to irritated, which is a constant), because I got no sense at all that they realized that maybe, just maybe, the issues were more nuanced than they were able to understand. I had to withdraw from editing it after a couple of days.
Sarah
Hopefully they got banned.
On 11/22/06, Sarah slimvirgin@gmail.com wrote:
On 11/22/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Article quality and content reflect the bias of their authors; whether internal or external (access to sources, exposure to topics) that is the issue.
About the only time I was conscious of gender issues while editing was when I briefly tried to edit one of the abortion-related articles. The page was in the control of a few male editors, and they were very aggressive, and absolutely certain they knew best. It's one of the few occasions I've been genuinely angry when editing (as opposed to irritated, which is a constant), because I got no sense at all that they realized that maybe, just maybe, the issues were more nuanced than they were able to understand. I had to withdraw from editing it after a couple of days.
Sarah _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On 11/22/06, James Hare messedrocker@gmail.com wrote:
Hopefully they got banned.
Better our titanium hardened streetfighters that those of the various outside groups with an interest.
Puppy wrote:
Article quality and content reflect the bias of their authors; whether internal or external (access to sources, exposure to topics) that is the issue. Your example is of geographical/political bias. There is also religious bias (see my user page), and many other biases on Wikipedia. This thread is about gender bias, note the subject: wrt gender: as in, with regard to gender, ie; gender bias. It has expanded to note that there may be gender bias or at least gender imbalance within the editor pool on Wikipedia, and explored various possible reasons. Your email does not seem to be addressing any of that. I am not sure what you are saying with your email: are you saying that geopolitical bias is more rampant and deserves more attention than gender bias? Are you saying gender bias is hard to identify? Please clarify.
I'm saying that I don't know of any significant systemic bias relating to gender. Systemic bias can happen even when everybody has good intentions and is on their best behavior, so it's orthogonal to editor gender, editor behavior, etc. The original post mentioned scanty coverage of blowdryers, perhaps not a great example for reasons already discussed; are there better examples where topics of particular interest to women are being overlooked?
(I'm assuming you're familiar with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]], which explains things better than I can. I note that it's primarily geographical - should it have a gender subproject?)
Stan
On 11/23/06, Stan Shebs stanshebs@earthlink.net wrote:
Puppy wrote:
Article quality and content reflect the bias of their authors; whether internal or external (access to sources, exposure to topics) that is the issue. Your example is of geographical/political bias. There is also religious bias (see my user page), and many other biases on Wikipedia. This thread is about gender bias, note the subject: wrt gender: as in, with regard to gender, ie; gender bias. It has expanded to note that there may be gender bias or at least gender imbalance within the editor pool on Wikipedia, and explored various possible reasons. Your email does not seem to be addressing any of that. I am not sure what you are saying with your email: are you saying that geopolitical bias is more rampant and deserves more attention than gender bias? Are you saying gender bias is hard to identify? Please clarify.
I'm saying that I don't know of any significant systemic bias relating to gender. Systemic bias can happen even when everybody has good intentions and is on their best behavior, so it's orthogonal to editor gender, editor behavior, etc. The original post mentioned scanty coverage of blowdryers, perhaps not a great example for reasons already discussed; are there better examples where topics of particular interest to women are being overlooked?
(I'm assuming you're familiar with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]], which explains things better than I can. I note that it's primarily geographical - should it have a gender subproject?)
Stan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
G'day Stan,
Going back to the original post, Keitei states* "our ballet articles make me weep inside*." I recall that in a Guardian exercise where experts reviewed articles in various areas, our fashion-related article was given a very low rating.
These may be areas where we have significant work ahead of us to get our articles up to scratch.
Regards
*Keith Old* ** Keith Old ** User Capitalistroadster
Keith Old wrote:
[...] I recall that in a Guardian exercise where experts reviewed articles in various areas, our fashion-related article was given a very low rating.
Ho ho ho, I can see the fireballs and pyroblasts heading your way now...
Stan
Stan Shebs wrote:
Puppy wrote:
Article quality and content reflect the bias of their authors; whether internal or external (access to sources, exposure to topics) that is the issue. Your example is of geographical/political bias. There is also religious bias (see my user page), and many other biases on Wikipedia. This thread is about gender bias, note the subject: wrt gender: as in, with regard to gender, ie; gender bias. It has expanded to note that there may be gender bias or at least gender imbalance within the editor pool on Wikipedia, and explored various possible reasons. Your email does not seem to be addressing any of that. I am not sure what you are saying with your email: are you saying that geopolitical bias is more rampant and deserves more attention than gender bias? Are you saying gender bias is hard to identify? Please clarify.
I'm saying that I don't know of any significant systemic bias relating to gender. Systemic bias can happen even when everybody has good intentions and is on their best behavior, so it's orthogonal to editor gender, editor behavior, etc. The original post mentioned scanty coverage of blowdryers, perhaps not a great example for reasons already discussed; are there better examples where topics of particular interest to women are being overlooked?
(I'm assuming you're familiar with [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias]], which explains things better than I can. I note that it's primarily geographical - should it have a gender subproject?)
Stan
I added the religious bias section to it, back in December 2005.
Gender bias is not my soapbox; this thread was not started by me, I have merely provided some anecdotal and statistical information. I believe we are currently in the examining and discussing phase rather than the solutions segment. I see as a more fundamental issue that women are less well represented in the editing pool, and wonder why that might be. If the editing pool were less unbalanced, perhaps our article coverage would be also. Then again, perhaps the women who are interested in editing Wikipedia are less interested in "women's topics" than in other subjects. I do note that [[Can opener]] is a stub, but look at [[P-38 can opener]], the military can opener. Not a great article but longer than the parent article. Of course, any Pokemon character article would blow both of these away. -kc-
Puppy wrote:
Gender bias is not my soapbox; this thread was not started by me, I have merely provided some anecdotal and statistical information. I believe we are currently in the examining and discussing phase rather than the solutions segment. I see as a more fundamental issue that women are less well represented in the editing pool, and wonder why that might be. If the editing pool were less unbalanced, perhaps our article coverage would be also.
If you're not sure that WP has systemic bias wrt gender, why would you believe that more women editors will make a difference? I'm not being flip here - so far we've had the general attitude that credentials are secondary, that a college student can follow the same rules and get the same treatment as a Nobel laureate. Now I'm in the camp that wants more subject-matter experts in WP, but I have a very pragmatic reason - my observation is that experts usually write much better and faster on their subject than amateurs, and so it's just a more efficient way to grow the encyclopedia; an expert can put together a feature-quality article in a couple sittings, while the mass of amateurs takes months to get to the same place (of course there are plenty of exceptions). The hazard of asserting that women editors have something similarly distinctive to bring to WP, by virtue of gender alone, is that one is playing right into the stereotype of "women's topics" or "female viewpoints", and risks creating a sort of "pink collar" ghetto in WP that new female editors would be subtly (or not-so-subtly) steered towards.
Then again, perhaps the women who are interested in editing Wikipedia are less interested in "women's topics" than in other subjects.
That's certainly been my experience. Often I'm surprised to discover that the gender of an editor is the opposite of what I had surmised based on choice of topics and editing style (so much for stereotypes!). Of course, short of a medical exam, results to be mailed to the Foundation, I'm not sure how one proves gender of an editor anyway... :-)
I do note that [[Can opener]] is a stub, but look at [[P-38 can opener]], the military can opener. Not a great article but longer than the parent article. Of course, any Pokemon character article would blow both of these away.
The ironic thing is that female editors (often teen-aged) are huge contributors to Pokemon articles. Would they become interested in [[can opener]] all of a sudden? Seems implausible to me - people are interested in what they're interested in.
Stan