Michael Snow wrote:
Similarly, we know that the community population skews young and male. That has important consequences, and some of those unfortunately reinforce our lack of diversity. It's been pointed out what a male-centric approach we sometimes have, in the enthusiasm and manner with which certain subjects are covered, and the oblivious attitude toward potential offensiveness of various images. This comes across to all too many women as a hostile culture. Most large online communities do not have the kind of gender imbalance we have. This is a serious issue we need to address. The foundation could do targeted outreach forever to recruit underrepresented groups (whether it's ethnicity, age, gender, or other factors), and it would accomplish very little without significant improvements in our culture.
Well, yes and no.
Historically the first time the offensiveness of images on wikipedia first came to a head (so to speak), was the images on [[Clitoris]]. At least in that instance the contributors who feigned the images as being offensive to viewers -- while in many cases claiming *they* personally weren't at all offended (!!) -- were predominantly male. My recollection was/is that the defenders of a photographic image on that page, instead of a schematic drawing, were mostly female.
I don't deny the general point about the testosterone-laden atmosphere in some areas of our community, but I do want to note that even in the latest controversy over images, the person on the Board of Trustees who came strongest in defense of a unfettered retention of sensual images of educational value was its (single?) female member. It would be a serious mistake to claim that she was doing so only to "fit in" with the lads.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen