[Gendergap] Why do we want more women on the Wikimedia Projects?( was: Introduction and some thoughts)

[Dominic]

On 2/3/11 4:55 AM, Delphine Ménard wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 2, 2011 at 5:01 PM, Fred Bauder<fredbaud at fairpoint.net>  wrote:
>
>> The question remains: Why don't more women edit even those articles that
>> we know women are interested in? And is there anything we can do to
>> facilitate more participation?
> Why should they?

This is a good point, and I have been surprised in talking about this 
issue before that not everyone (even with full knowledge of the gender 
disparity) even necessarily identifies it as a problem. To me, there are 
at least three important points, which people probably agree with or 
value to different extents.

1) Greater female participation is good for Wikipedia's quality;
2) Greater female participation is good for Wikipedia's editing 
experience; and
3) Greater female participation is good for women and/or society (i.e., 
empowerment)

I think all three of these are good reasons, but, perhaps 
counterintuitively, I actually think the latter two are most important. 
While I definitely believe that more women (and other types of increased 
editor diversity) will improve Wikipedia's quality in terms of coverage, 
tone, and balance, the eventualist wiki-theorist in me believes that the 
wiki model can somehow overcome systemic bias of all types even if there 
is never perfect representation of all groups. To make a related point, 
we shouldn't want women only for the improvement of coverage of female 
perspectives and topics, just as we don't value men only for their 
male-oriented editing (not that there are such clear categories, but 
that is another debate).

As an editor, the prospect of #2 most excites me, since I enjoy 
diversity of perspectives and experiences in the communities in which I 
participate, and even think that a greater female voice will have a 
positive aspect on the atmosphere of the project. Also, to make the 
obvious point, it is harder to identify and police aspects of the 
editing community that are unfavorable or unwelcoming to women without 
women.

I include the third point because, as a social good, women should become 
equal partners in the production of cultural works. I thought it's 
important that we not lose sight of that fact; while most of the 
rationales people have raised here and in the media have focused 
pragmatically on the effects female participation will have on the 
project, the idea of full participation in all aspects of society is as 
much about what that will do /for women/ (in countering marginalization 
and building up women's personal capacities through their sense of 
dignity, self-worth, and self-confidence) as it is about what women will 
do /for society/ (we don't necessarily expect achieving gender parity in 
the field of chemistry to lead to breakthroughs men are incapable of, 
but it's still a worthy goal). Someone versed in gender theory can 
probably make the last point more eloquently than me, but that may 
become a tangent.

Anyway, I'll stop there, except to say that while I am generally 
skeptical of the usefulness of pontificating on mailing lists (which 
isn't to say I don't enjoy it), I am happy to see this new effort and 
hope it will lead to real results.

Dominic
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110203/9b979f8f/attachment.htm