I think that the realistic point of view should be another.
There is a potential number of people who can be contributors (contributors and not readers) but this potential number must be *realistic*.
Anyway these persons should have something to contribute to wikimedia projects an basically:
a) ability to write (so a sufficient capacity to be "active" users and not "passive", it means a valid education and knowledge) b) connection to the network (in order to have a continuous contribution to the projects) c) time to spent (volunteers must have time... a woman with children probably will dedicate her free time to the family)
So there is a digital divide and a gender gap and so on but probably the barriers cannot be solved within Wikimedia.
For this reason I don't think that "half the humans" could contribute. There are barriers (education, digital divide, freetime, etc.) that can only be "partially" solved by Wikimedia.
Please don't do the same simpler association "number of speakers" = "potential number of contributors" because that strategy will be *surely* wrong.
Regards
On Thu, Jan 8, 2015 at 9:56 AM, FRED BAUDER fredbaud@fairpoint.net wrote:
That said, it doesn't matter who writes the content on Wikipedia so long as it's relevant and factual.
That's the point; it would not matter if women contributed so long as it's relevant and factual. Half the humans that could contribute are not. Actually many more than half, as there are barriers other than gender.
Fred
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe