Ryan Kaldari wrote:

Gregory, I'm sorry if I misinterpreted your post, but it sounded very much like you were saying that encyclopedia writing is a skill that is too academic for women: "...general approaches which make Wikipedia more palatable to "average people"... may have a greater impact at reducing gender imbalance than female centric improvements... Though are limits to the amount of main-streaming you can do of an academic activity such as encyclopaedia writing."

Perhaps you were not meaning to imply that women are too "average" to be interested in academic activities. I'm glad to hear that isn't the case, but I would encourage you to be more careful with your wording in the future. There is a long history of scientific apologetics being used to perpetuate sexism, racism, etc. Just look at the "science" of phrenology, or more recently "The Bell Curve". Anyway, I don't want to drag this thread into a debate on scientific -isms. I just wanted to remind everyone that there are real steps that can be taken to address the gender imbalance problem, regardless of any real or perceived gender differences.

I think the valuable point Gregory had, which is obscured both by the sensitivity of the topic and the obscurity of the theoretical basis for the argument, is that there's quite a bit that can be done to encourage greater female participation that doesn't involve specifically targeting females. This need not (and should not) assume that women have less ability, so it's also important to use care in how we frame the discussion. But I think the academic performance of women in society generally amply demonstrates that there's nothing fundamental about a knowledge-sharing project - that being our ultimate aim - which would explain the kind of imbalance that exists in our community.

It is possible to theorize about biological differences like greater genetic variability as explanations, but for characteristics like gender that are so intimately connected to a social construction of the concept, it's largely impossible to truly isolate them and eliminate the social factors at play. That also makes it hard to talk about the subject without perilous characterizations and generalizations, but talk about it we must.

At risk of going in that direction, I could suggest that usability initiatives fit in very well with what Gregory was suggesting. Usability doesn't particularly have gender on the agenda, but it's possible to see that type of concern as somehow "female" in our society. To use a bit of gross stereotyping, one might consider it typically male to seek to demonstrate skill in mastering a challenging environment, and more typically female to seek to apply skill toward changing the environment to make it less challenging. The problem is partly that while from a neutral perspective, there's no particular reason to favor either of these skills, in practice we tend to be quite imbalanced, with social consequences that follow accordingly.

Another illustration are the cultural issues various people have highlighted here, such as hostility and tone of discussion. On the surface those are gender-neutral considerations, but because of how people are socialized, they have important consequences in reality. That's before we even get into problems where gender is more obviously implicated, like locker-room-type banter or casual objectification of women. This is why I think it's so important for us to examine our culture and figure out what we need to do to improve it.

--Michael Snow