The recent thread on the low numbers of women applying for ArbCom and subsequent discussion about systemic bias and under-representation of women has led me to wonder about the nature of gender-related systemic bias on the English Wikipedia. As far as "gender is irrelevant" goes, this is simply not true. Gender of editors really does matter as far as coverage and quality thereof goes. Most of the women I know spend one or two hours in the morning with a straightening iron and a blow dryer. Wikipedia has http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowdryer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Hair_iron . These two articles are considerably out of date and do not begin to encompass the complexities of these appliances (and there is not even separate articles for straightening irons and curling irons!). Compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television , the two appliances I have known men to use most. Or even to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Microwave_oven and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refrigerator . Or to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor . The bias is there.
My question is not "Does systemic bias exist?" but rather "Where is systemic bias hurting us most?" From a coverage standpoint, we have vast comprehensive articles on sports of all kinds, but our ballet articles make me weep inside (I've just started a Ballet WikiProject to address this, but had been too intimidated to do so since first reading/editing until I met another female ballet dancer on wiki). However, how does this compare to the way policy is formed and implemented? Is an unequal ratio of men to women affecting the way we run things? Is it negatively impacting the structure of the encyclopedia? Is it proceeding in this way such that men find it easier to join and women do not? What is suffering the most from this bias, and are there ways to better receive the input of those who would otherwise not be heard?
As far as women reading the mailing list, I know that there are plenty who do (like myself), but do not discuss much. I know that I also read more than I edit, perhaps this is the case with more females than just myself?
Food for thought. :] --Keitei http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Keitei
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
niht-hræfn stated for the record:
As far as "gender is irrelevant" goes, this is simply not true.
Citation required.
Gender of editors really does matter as far as coverage and quality thereof goes.
O RLY? How?
- -- Sean Barrett | Hunde, wollt ihr ewig leben? sean@epoptic.com | Friedrich der Große, Kolin, 18 June 1757
On Nov 21, 2006, at 4:28 PM, niht-hræfn wrote:
The recent thread on the low numbers of women applying for ArbCom and subsequent discussion about systemic bias and under-representation of women has led me to wonder about the nature of gender-related systemic bias on the English Wikipedia.
I suspect the cause is simply that women have something else to do with their time that they enjoy more. However, I also suspect enough women will edit, that "women's subjects" will eventually be adequately handled.
Fred
On Nov 21, 2006, at 19:08, Fred Bauder wrote:
On Nov 21, 2006, at 4:28 PM, niht-hræfn wrote:
The recent thread on the low numbers of women applying for ArbCom and subsequent discussion about systemic bias and under-representation of women has led me to wonder about the nature of gender-related systemic bias on the English Wikipedia.
I suspect the cause is simply that women have something else to do with their time that they enjoy more. However, I also suspect enough women will edit, that "women's subjects" will eventually be adequately handled.
Fred
Indeed, I'm not terribly worried about article coverage, but merely wondering if the difference is affecting other areas, such as policy.
--Keitei
On 11/21/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
On Nov 21, 2006, at 19:08, Fred Bauder wrote:
On Nov 21, 2006, at 4:28 PM, niht-hræfn wrote:
The recent thread on the low numbers of women applying for ArbCom and subsequent discussion about systemic bias and under-representation of women has led me to wonder about the nature of gender-related systemic bias on the English Wikipedia.
I suspect the cause is simply that women have something else to do with their time that they enjoy more. However, I also suspect enough women will edit, that "women's subjects" will eventually be adequately handled.
Fred
Indeed, I'm not terribly worried about article coverage, but merely wondering if the difference is affecting other areas, such as policy.
--Keitei
Do you have specific examples which come to mind, or is this a generic concern?
I have seen such things happen in the past in smaller groups, but larger sets of people tend to have less such problems. WP policy has seemed pretty neutral to me, but I'm open to the possibility that I'm not seeing something that's there.
On 11/21/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I suspect the cause is simply that women have something else to do with their time that they enjoy more. However, I also suspect enough women will edit, that "women's subjects" will eventually be adequately handled.
Without meaning it to be a big point in this issue, I just want to point out that "Oh, women probably have better things to do!" has been a rationale to dismiss evidence of non-equal participation for a long, long time. Like, "Oh, but women get to know the joy of motherhood, which is far more exciting than politics or a good career," it sounds like a compliment on the surface of it but it usually masks explicit or implicit acceptance of a limiting status quo.
I'm not trying to imply anything about Fred's personal views on this, but I just want to point out that I'm not sure this a fruitful approach and it is one with pretty bad precedents.
I think it is probably very likely that most of Wikipedia's editing is done by males, and I find it inconceivable that this wouldn't effect a slant in the editing. That being said, I am not sure I know where the "problem" lies, if we decide that it is a problem, and I am not sure there is any sort of easy fix. I suspect that editing regularly on Wikipedia caters primarily to activities which are often branded as "masculine" in U.S. culture (aggressiveness, boldness, assertiveness, argumentitiveness), and that would be something without an easy fix (and its possible that any fixes would go directly against the unplanned, unmanaged wiki spirit). But I don't know.
FF
On 11/21/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is probably very likely that most of Wikipedia's editing is done by males, and I find it inconceivable that this wouldn't effect a slant in the editing. That being said, I am not sure I know where the "problem" lies, if we decide that it is a problem, and I am not sure there is any sort of easy fix. I suspect that editing regularly on Wikipedia caters primarily to activities which are often branded as "masculine" in U.S. culture (aggressiveness, boldness, assertiveness, argumentitiveness), and that would be something without an easy fix (and its possible that any fixes would go directly against the unplanned, unmanaged wiki spirit). But I don't know.
I think female editors have a tendency to be demonized more readily than men if they assert themselves. A certain attack site is very keen on attacking women admins, and while that's partly to do with the personalities of the people who post there, I think there may also be a strain of sexism in it -- women admins getting above themselves, being viewed as aggressive rather than assertive. But I haven't noticed any serious bias in terms of editing.
Sarah
Sarah wrote:
On 11/21/06, Fastfission fastfission@gmail.com wrote:
I think it is probably very likely that most of Wikipedia's editing is done by males, and I find it inconceivable that this wouldn't effect a slant in the editing. That being said, I am not sure I know where the "problem" lies, if we decide that it is a problem, and I am not sure there is any sort of easy fix. I suspect that editing regularly on Wikipedia caters primarily to activities which are often branded as "masculine" in U.S. culture (aggressiveness, boldness, assertiveness, argumentitiveness), and that would be something without an easy fix (and its possible that any fixes would go directly against the unplanned, unmanaged wiki spirit). But I don't know.
I think female editors have a tendency to be demonized more readily than men if they assert themselves. A certain attack site is very keen on attacking women admins, and while that's partly to do with the personalities of the people who post there, I think there may also be a strain of sexism in it -- women admins getting above themselves, being viewed as aggressive rather than assertive. But I haven't noticed any serious bias in terms of editing.
Sarah _______________________________________________
Simone de Beauvior once said there are two types of people: Human beings and women, and that when women act like human beings, they are accused of trying to be men.
-kc
On Nov 21, 2006, at 6:55 PM, Fastfission wrote:
On 11/21/06, Fred Bauder fredbaud@waterwiki.info wrote:
I suspect the cause is simply that women have something else to do with their time that they enjoy more. However, I also suspect enough women will edit, that "women's subjects" will eventually be adequately handled.
Without meaning it to be a big point in this issue, I just want to point out that "Oh, women probably have better things to do!" has been a rationale to dismiss evidence of non-equal participation for a long, long time. Like, "Oh, but women get to know the joy of motherhood, which is far more exciting than politics or a good career," it sounds like a compliment on the surface of it but it usually masks explicit or implicit acceptance of a limiting status quo.
I'm not trying to imply anything about Fred's personal views on this, but I just want to point out that I'm not sure this a fruitful approach and it is one with pretty bad precedents.
I think it is probably very likely that most of Wikipedia's editing is done by males, and I find it inconceivable that this wouldn't effect a slant in the editing. That being said, I am not sure I know where the "problem" lies, if we decide that it is a problem, and I am not sure there is any sort of easy fix. I suspect that editing regularly on Wikipedia caters primarily to activities which are often branded as "masculine" in U.S. culture (aggressiveness, boldness, assertiveness, argumentitiveness), and that would be something without an easy fix (and its possible that any fixes would go directly against the unplanned, unmanaged wiki spirit). But I don't know.
It has been shown that we are eager to accept women in leadership positions. I support encouragement of women but not discouragement of men.
Fred
On 11/21/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
Most of the women I know spend one or two hours in the morning with a straightening iron and a blow dryer. Wikipedia has http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowdryer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Hair_iron . These two articles are considerably out of date and do not begin to encompass the complexities of these appliances (and there is not even separate articles for straightening irons and curling irons!). Compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television , the two appliances I have known men to use most.
Keitel, your e-mail is itself a good example of bias. The women you know who spend two hours every morning with a straightening iron and a blowdryer need to find a good hairdresser. The cut is everything. :-)
Seriously, it's kind of disturbing to see that women should be editing [[Blowdryer]] while the men get to grips with [[Arab-Israeli conflict]].
Sarah
On Nov 21, 2006, at 19:39, Sarah wrote:
On 11/21/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
Most of the women I know spend one or two hours in the morning with a straightening iron and a blow dryer. Wikipedia has http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowdryer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Hair_iron . These two articles are considerably out of date and do not begin to encompass the complexities of these appliances (and there is not even separate articles for straightening irons and curling irons!). Compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television , the two appliances I have known men to use most.
Keitel, your e-mail is itself a good example of bias. The women you know who spend two hours every morning with a straightening iron and a blowdryer need to find a good hairdresser. The cut is everything. :-)
Seriously, it's kind of disturbing to see that women should be editing [[Blowdryer]] while the men get to grips with [[Arab-Israeli conflict]].
Sarah
Or some self-esteem. :] I don't think women /should/ be editing [[Blowdryer]], just that even I who cares nothing for such products could easily list a few manufacturers and the people I know who actually use them could supply so much more information. Additionally, those who have them could add pictures that aren't from a few decades ago. :] It probably wasn't the best example ever, but I remembered being pissed about [[Conair Corporation]] not existing some time ago...
--Keitei
Sarah wrote:
Seriously, it's kind of disturbing to see that women should be editing [[Blowdryer]] while the men get to grips with [[Arab-Israeli conflict]].
Anyway, COI policy now strongly recommends that only baldies (which may be of either gender) edit [[Blowdryer]], right?
:-)
But to be serious again, it's not necessarily the *users* of a tool who are the most interested in it - a better contributor is likely to be the ultra-nerd whose library includes all the books ever published on small personal appliances, and a nearly-complete collection of historically significant blowdryers.
There are plenty of women on this list; perhaps they could opine on whether there is significant systemic bias genderwise?
Stan
Sarah wrote:
On 11/21/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
Most of the women I know spend one or two hours in the morning with a straightening iron and a blow dryer. Wikipedia has http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowdryer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Hair_iron . These two articles are considerably out of date and do not begin to encompass the complexities of these appliances (and there is not even separate articles for straightening irons and curling irons!). Compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television , the two appliances I have known men to use most.
Keitel, your e-mail is itself a good example of bias. The women you know who spend two hours every morning with a straightening iron and a blowdryer need to find a good hairdresser. The cut is everything. :-)
Seriously, it's kind of disturbing to see that women should be editing [[Blowdryer]] while the men get to grips with [[Arab-Israeli conflict]].
Sarah _______________________________________________
Speaking as a woman who does not even own a blowdryer or curling iron, I concur with Sarah - the cut is everything. I also am closer to losing my temper than at any other time ever on Wikipedia. Keitel, your entire email is insulting in the extreme. No one is claiming women handle all the "serious" articles and men edit only Beer and NASCAR articles. You are taking one tiny stereotype and applying it across the board. I personally use a computer, I am a programmer by trade, and have not touched a curling iron in 30 years. I know men who won't touch a computer. If "most of the women" you know actually have more interest in their hair than in current events, history, the rise and fall of nations, influential novels, paradigms which have reshaped society, etc, all I can say to you is that you need to meet some new women.
--pissed puppy, who doesn't care for stereotypes
Puppy wrote:
Sarah wrote:
On 11/21/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
Most of the women I know spend one or two hours in the morning with a straightening iron and a blow dryer. Wikipedia has http:// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blowdryer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Hair_iron . These two articles are considerably out of date and do not begin to encompass the complexities of these appliances (and there is not even separate articles for straightening irons and curling irons!). Compare to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television , the two appliances I have known men to use most.
Keitel, your e-mail is itself a good example of bias. The women you know who spend two hours every morning with a straightening iron and a blowdryer need to find a good hairdresser. The cut is everything. :-)
Seriously, it's kind of disturbing to see that women should be editing [[Blowdryer]] while the men get to grips with [[Arab-Israeli conflict]].
Sarah _______________________________________________
Speaking as a woman who does not even own a blowdryer or curling iron, I concur with Sarah - the cut is everything. I also am closer to losing my temper than at any other time ever on Wikipedia. Keitel, your entire email is insulting in the extreme. No one is claiming women handle all the "serious" articles and men edit only Beer and NASCAR articles. You are taking one tiny stereotype and applying it across the board. I personally use a computer, I am a programmer by trade, and have not touched a curling iron in 30 years. I know men who won't touch a computer. If "most of the women" you know actually have more interest in their hair than in current events, history, the rise and fall of nations, influential novels, paradigms which have reshaped society, etc, all I can say to you is that you need to meet some new women.
--pissed puppy, who doesn't care for stereotypes
Now you see what happens when I don't have a preview button. Apologies to all for getting irritated... -puppy, chastised by self
On Nov 22, 2006, at 6:18, Puppy wrote:
Puppy wrote:
No one is claiming women handle all the "serious" articles and men edit only Beer and NASCAR articles. You are taking one tiny stereotype and applying it across the board. I personally use a computer, I am a programmer by trade, and have not touched a curling iron in 30 years. I know men who won't touch a computer. If "most of the women" you know actually have more interest in their hair than in current events, history, the rise and fall of nations, influential novels, paradigms which have reshaped society, etc, all I can say to you is that you need to meet some new women.
--pissed puppy, who doesn't care for stereotypes
I didn't mean to imply this. I'm saying coverage of stereotypically "women's" stuff (which many women wouldn't have a problem fixing up) is not optimal. The women that I know who may happen to blowdry their hair or straighten it also have computers and are interested in history and literature. However, they don't edit Wikipedia while some of the men I know do sometimes. I could probably have chosen a better stereotypical subject to harp on... However, more important than our coverage is how inviting we are to female editors, unless we wish to argue that a male-dominated editing body will benefit us most in the end. I think we should be equally concerned with how inviting we are to older editors, more technophobic (if that's a good word) editors, and such.
I wonder though, why [[Menstruation]], [[Menses]], [[Menstruum]], [[Menstrual flow]], etc redirect to [[Menstrual cycle]] instead of having their own articles, with menses just being mentioned (two sentences) and the topics of menstruation near the end of the article, almost as an afterthought.
--Keitei, who cares more about menstruation than your average woman (and who doesn't blowdry her hair and rarely straightens or curls it because the heat is horrible for the hair)
niht-hræfn wrote:
On Nov 22, 2006, at 6:18, Puppy wrote:
Puppy wrote:
No one is claiming women handle all the "serious" articles and men edit only Beer and NASCAR articles. You are taking one tiny stereotype and applying it across the board. I personally use a computer, I am a programmer by trade, and have not touched a curling iron in 30 years. I know men who won't touch a computer. If "most of the women" you know actually have more interest in their hair than in current events, history, the rise and fall of nations, influential novels, paradigms which have reshaped society, etc, all I can say to you is that you need to meet some new women.
--pissed puppy, who doesn't care for stereotypes
I didn't mean to imply this. I'm saying coverage of stereotypically "women's" stuff (which many women wouldn't have a problem fixing up) is not optimal. The women that I know who may happen to blowdry their hair or straighten it also have computers and are interested in history and literature. However, they don't edit Wikipedia while some of the men I know do sometimes. I could probably have chosen a better stereotypical subject to harp on... However, more important than our coverage is how inviting we are to female editors, unless we wish to argue that a male-dominated editing body will benefit us most in the end. I think we should be equally concerned with how inviting we are to older editors, more technophobic (if that's a good word) editors, and such.
I wonder though, why [[Menstruation]], [[Menses]], [[Menstruum]], [[Menstrual flow]], etc redirect to [[Menstrual cycle]] instead of having their own articles, with menses just being mentioned (two sentences) and the topics of menstruation near the end of the article, almost as an afterthought.
--Keitei, who cares more about menstruation than your average woman (and who doesn't blowdry her hair and rarely straightens or curls it because the heat is horrible for the hair) _______________________________________________
Now women's health issues is important, and it would concern me should they be neglected. Blow dryers probably gets neglected for the same reason can opener is a stub - it simply isn't that notable a topic compared to WWII, or menstruation. This is not to say that improving and expanding such articles is not desirable - after all, we wish to be the premier source of general information on everything - but it is not due to gender bias, and to imply that it is to me is reinforcing the "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person". Why all the variations on "menstrual" point to one article is probably due to the fact that they are so close to synonymous that to split them would be introducing redundancy. The only subjects of which I am aware which are over-subdivided, if you will, are politically or religiously charged subjects. Hence, Abortion is an enormous cascade of articles, because people have strong views, there is a legal debate, a religious debate, etc - but no one is arguing about a woman's menstrual cycle. I could be in error, but that is how it appears to me.
-kc-
Puppy wrote: <snip>
This is not to say that improving and expanding such articles is not desirable - after all, we wish to be the premier source of general information on everything - but it is not due to gender bias, and to imply that it is to me is reinforcing the "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person".
Actually, your argument here is serving /that/ purpose quite well.
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Puppy wrote:
<snip>
This is not to say that improving and expanding such articles is not desirable - after all, we wish to be the premier source of general information on everything - but it is not due to gender bias, and to imply that it is to me is reinforcing the "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person".
Actually, your argument here is serving /that/ purpose quite well.
? Either I'm misunderstanding you, or I've just been insulted. -kc-
Puppy wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Puppy wrote:
<snip>
This is not to say that improving and expanding such articles is not desirable - after all, we wish to be the premier source of general information on everything - but it is not due to gender bias, and to imply that it is to me is reinforcing the "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person".
Actually, your argument here is serving /that/ purpose quite well.
? Either I'm misunderstanding you, or I've just been insulted.
You're not helping your cause...
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Puppy wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Puppy wrote:
<snip>
This is not to say that improving and expanding such articles is not desirable - after all, we wish to be the premier source of general information on everything - but it is not due to gender bias, and to imply that it is to me is reinforcing the "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person".
Actually, your argument here is serving /that/ purpose quite well.
? Either I'm misunderstanding you, or I've just been insulted.
You're not helping your cause...
Then I've been insulted. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I hoped I was merely misunderstanding your intent. It is entirely possible you have misunderstood me; if you confine yourself to making sarcastic remarks and insulting me, I cannot judge and cannot clarify for you. What purpose do you intend your insults to serve, or do you merely enjoy insulting others without any sort of constructive criticism or meaningful dialogue? -kc-
Puppy wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Puppy wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Puppy wrote:
<snip>
This is not to say that improving and expanding such articles is not desirable - after all, we wish to be the premier source of general information on everything - but it is not due to gender bias, and to imply that it is to me is reinforcing the "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person".
Actually, your argument here is serving /that/ purpose quite well.
? Either I'm misunderstanding you, or I've just been insulted.
You're not helping your cause...
Then I've been insulted. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I hoped I was merely misunderstanding your intent. It is entirely possible you have misunderstood me; if you confine yourself to making sarcastic remarks and insulting me, I cannot judge and cannot clarify for you. What purpose do you intend your insults to serve, or do you merely enjoy insulting others without any sort of constructive criticism or meaningful dialogue?
Women arguing on this list reinforces the view of "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person".
On 11/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Puppy wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Then I've been insulted. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I hoped I was merely misunderstanding your intent. It is entirely possible you have misunderstood me; if you confine yourself to making sarcastic remarks and insulting me, I cannot judge and cannot clarify for you. What purpose do you intend your insults to serve, or do you merely enjoy insulting others without any sort of constructive criticism or meaningful dialogue?
Women arguing on this list reinforces the view of "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person".
I really hope I'm misunderstanding your comments, Alphax.
I note, as a data point, that I've never felt myself to be on the receiving end of slights on-wiki for being female (dealings with a certain banned user or two excepted) -- but kc has a point, and a well-expressed one at that.
And if you don't think so, you're welcome to say so in a more constructive and intelligent fashion than you did here.
-Kat
Kat Walsh wrote:
On 11/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Puppy wrote:
Alphax (Wikipedia email) wrote:
Then I've been insulted. Thank you for clarifying that for me. I hoped I was merely misunderstanding your intent. It is entirely possible you have misunderstood me; if you confine yourself to making sarcastic remarks and insulting me, I cannot judge and cannot clarify for you. What purpose do you intend your insults to serve, or do you merely enjoy insulting others without any sort of constructive criticism or meaningful dialogue?
Women arguing on this list reinforces the view of "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person".
I really hope I'm misunderstanding your comments, Alphax.
I note, as a data point, that I've never felt myself to be on the receiving end of slights on-wiki for being female (dealings with a certain banned user or two excepted) -- but kc has a point, and a well-expressed one at that.
And if you don't think so, you're welcome to say so in a more constructive and intelligent fashion than you did here.
YHBT, YHL, HAND? No, that's not very constructive.
The point that I was trying to get across was that this thread is pointless. I'm putting myself on moderation.
On 11/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
YHBT, YHL, HAND? No, that's not very constructive.
The point that I was trying to get across was that this thread is pointless. I'm putting myself on moderation.
Actually it was a very interesting and informative thread until you came along and started making misogynistic comments. But good move on moderating yourself (though it's always better to just shut up when you can't help but be a bigot)
Guettarda stated for the record:
On 11/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
YHBT, YHL, HAND? No, that's not very constructive.
The point that I was trying to get across was that this thread is pointless. I'm putting myself on moderation.
Actually it was a very interesting and informative thread until you came along and started making misogynistic comments. But good move on moderating yourself (though it's always better to just shut up when you can't help but be a bigot)
What purpose does your malicious needling serve?
On 11/22/06, Alphax (Wikipedia email) alphasigmax@gmail.com wrote:
Puppy wrote:
<snip> > This is not to say that improving and expanding such articles is not > desirable - after all, we wish to be the premier source of general > information on everything - but it is not due to gender bias, and to > imply that it is to me is reinforcing the > "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person".
Actually, your argument here is serving /that/ purpose quite well.
WTF? I don't know what's more wrong with that statement - its blatent misogyny, or the fact that it's an empty-headed, shallow and just plain incorrect statemen (quite unlike KC's carefully rational argument supported by both anecdote and data)
OK, I'm convinced - time to go clean the kitchen so that I can actually get my contribution to housework up to the 10% I think I do...
Puppy wrote: <snip>
Now women's health issues is important, and it would concern me should they be neglected. Blow dryers probably gets neglected for the same reason can opener is a stub - it simply isn't that notable a topic compared to WWII, or menstruation.
I secretly suspect that if it /were/ expanded, it would quickly be culled as "cruft" - we've had joke articles (eg. European toilet roll holder, floating around some BJAODN archive) that are longer than the articles on real-world objects. The more likely (and publically acceptable) reason why these articles haven't been expanded is lack of reference materials - what can people write about them that is verifiable and not original research? Short of advertisements in long-lost "women's magazines", I doubt that much raw material was ever produced. /Possibly/ there are reviews by consumer associations, but they're probably in the realm of pay-access and hence not particularly friendly...
This is not to say that improving and expanding such articles is not desirable - after all, we wish to be the premier source of general information on everything
Well, yes.
- but it is not due to gender bias, and to imply that it is to me is
reinforcing the "woman-as-empty-headed-shallow-person".
Claims of gender bias are /rarely/ seen as justified, mainly due to saturation and desensitisation by female chauvinists who scream "OMG gender bias" at every available oppurtunity. Sadly, as a result, very few claims of gender bias are treated seriously, regardless of who is making them.
Why all the variations on "menstrual" point to one article is probably due to the fact that they are so close to synonymous that to split them would be introducing redundancy.
And yet, I've seen cases where multiple similar/synonymous articles that /could/ be merged exist as disjoint stubs. IMO the best solution is to merge the articles under one title, but explain the seperate points, preferably with one sub-heading for each incoming redirect (where applicable).
The only subjects of which I am aware which are over-subdivided, if you will, are politically or religiously charged subjects. Hence, Abortion is an enormous cascade of articles, because people have strong views, there is a legal debate, a religious debate, etc - but no one is arguing about a woman's menstrual cycle. I could be in error, but that is how it appears to me.
Yes, because I suspect that it's very hard for our predominately male editing population to POV push on something that they feel doesn't affect them.
On 11/22/06, Puppy puppy@killerchihuahua.com wrote:
Speaking as a woman who does not even own a blowdryer or curling iron, I concur with Sarah - the cut is everything. I also am closer to losing my temper than at any other time ever on Wikipedia. Keitel, your entire email is insulting in the extreme. No one is claiming women handle all the "serious" articles and men edit only Beer and NASCAR articles. You are taking one tiny stereotype and applying it across the board. I personally use a computer, I am a programmer by trade, and have not touched a curling iron in 30 years. I know men who won't touch a computer. If "most of the women" you know actually have more interest in their hair than in current events, history, the rise and fall of nations, influential novels, paradigms which have reshaped society, etc, all I can say to you is that you need to meet some new women.
--pissed puppy, who doesn't care for stereotypes
I've just read through some of these threads on gender bias and the low numbers of women in arbcom and WP in general.
Like KC-Puppy, I too am a programmer. I recall once at a company where I worked, I was the senior programmer training a new junior programmer who was male. The newly hired vice president approached us to discuss a project and it soon became obvious that he assumed the male programmer was my superior and that I must be his secretary!
I've regularly experienced this sort of gender-bias attitude in a variety of settings, and Wikipedia is not exempt.
Now at Wikipedia, even though gender is more hidden behind ambiguous usernames, there still exists a bit of a boy's club. Editors who don't know me or neglect to notice the "This user is a mother" userbox on my user page often tend to assume the "M" in MPerel likely stands for "Mike" and I get the accompanying slap-on-the-back attempted male-bonding sort of treatment. Often, I find it easier to let people assume I am a "dude", though in doing that, I find myself holding back contributing since I realize of course that I make quite a mediocre male and fall short of the ability to exhibit the predominantly-valued male qualities. For me it's not a matter of being intimidated (I have healthy self-esteem), but it's just that my outlook and approach to problem-solving doesn't fit the dominant male-oriented mold, and I ask myself, why should I waste my time and effort in areas where it isn't valued?
Occasionally an editor who has discovered I am female dismisses me as an air-headed ditz. I was going to provide a link to the most agregious misogynistic example I personally experienced, but it has apparently been deleted, perhaps since it outed my presumed location. Basically I was mercilessly mocked with demeaning sexist ridicule when I tried to address a particular conflict on a talk page from what I consider my more female perspective.
Even without the blatant misogynist trolls, subtle attitudes and assumptions exist that are often presumptive, demeaning and dismissive of women and female ways of looking at things. There is a bias favoring male aggressiveness, although if a female editor exhibits assertiveness she is often treated and labeled as queen bitch and is summarily harrassed and persecuted. I've seen the harrassment that the few prominent females have endured and frankly it has deterred me from being a more active participant or from pursuing any official leadership role as I don't see the need to subject myself to that kind of treatment. I've been a Wikipedian for years but I still continue to regularly put off admin nomination offers because I hesitate to make myself a target.
I think the gender bias problem is bigger (yet perhaps more subtle) than some think.
~Miri not Mike! (MPerel)
On 21/11/06, niht-hræfn nihthraefn@gmail.com wrote:
The recent thread on the low numbers of women applying for ArbCom and subsequent discussion about systemic bias and under-representation of women has led me to wonder about the nature of gender-related systemic bias on the English Wikipedia. As far as "gender is irrelevant" goes, this is simply not true. Gender of editors really does matter as far as coverage and quality thereof goes. Most of the
I'm thinking of a conversation with a feminist friend who considers Wikipedia hopelessly patriarchally biased and useless to harmful. I pointed out we had recognised the systemic bias issue. I also asked her to think about solutions that include the assumption that Wikipedia is not going to go away.
- d.