[Gendergap] Top 10 Reasons to Encourage More Women Participation in Wikipedia

[Delphine Ménard]

Wow. Thanks, this kind of line of thinking is _exactly_ what I had in
mind when asking the question. I think that trying to solve a problem
when you have no clear reason to solve it leads to a dead end.

These reasons are exactly the kind of things we should keep in mind
when trying to solve the problem.

Gracias, luna ;-)

Delphine

On Tue, Feb 8, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Sandra ordonez <sandratordonez at gmail.com> wrote:
> Now that I've vented, I've been thinking of Delphine's original question(s)
> regarding the why...this is what i came up with.
>
> 1) Improve the quality of information. Information is shaped by perspective,
> regardless of how NPOV you aim to be, and perspective is shaped by
> experience. When you experience the world in a certain perspective, you see
> things that others don't see. A Chinese immigrant in the United States may
> notice things that a American born may not see, just like it is very likely
> that a female may notice things their male counterparts don't see.
>
> 2) Open doors to more groups.The inclusion of women might have a domino
> affect, and open doors for other groups, particularly those that are
> traditionally dis-empowered, such as people of color in the United States.
> (You can include whatever other group you want here..I can only speak to the
> US).
>
> 3) Improved processes and systems. Collaboration is improved by diversity -
> everyone in this group knows this. More female participation may result in
> better collaborative brainstorming and problem solvin.
>
> 4) Better organization. Studies reveal that women tend to be great
> multi-taskers. IMHO, women are great multitaskers because they also plan
> their world to be more "efficient" for multitasking. I can totally see a
> group of women helping improve the organization of Wikipedia's rules,
> background knowledge, presentation, etc.
>
> 5) Stronger community. Reports are also showing that more women than men are
> on social media. This is because women tend to focus on creating community.
> A larger, more sophisticated Wikipedian community is so powerful, I'm not
> even sure how to describe its potential in words. However, it would have the
> ability to help the projects but bring change worldwide.
>
>
> 6) Better image. Organizations that are ethical are usually favored and
> respected by society, which increase's an org's success. I am not talking
> "left vs right," and this is not a philosophical question, it is a public
> relations one. Talk to any PR practioner and they can share why this works,
> and examples of organizations taking this PR strategy.  And, at a minimum, I
> can guarantee it will increase how many women worldwide see the project,
> which btw are 50% of the world's population.
>
> 7) Better parties and possibly more Wikilove! As corny as it sounds, I am
> quite positive that more women will improve the festivities in any wiki get
> together, and possibly result in more wikilove :) lolol Why not!! What a
> perfect place to meet someone that shares your interest, and better parties
> are usually always welcomed.
>
> 8) A better world society. Wikipedia has this ability to affect the world
> and start revolutions in what seems to be very silent but effective ways. I
> really believe that the inclusion of women will have amazing revolutionary
> affects on the world, and make it better. Channeling Jeff Bridges,
> "information is really power, man." And maybe we have come to take for
> granted that the world is informed/educated through wikipedia on a daily
> basis. This has an effect.
>
> 9) Its the right thing to do. Wikipedia has always gone against the grain,
> even though at times it ruffled society's feathers b/c transparency in
> knowledge sharing is more important than the agenda of any group. Its part
> of the free culture movement, dedicated to empowering people worldwide, and
> has done much in that area. Why wouldn't it come together now to improve on
> this systematic problem that affects not only the project, but humans at
> large.
>
> 10) Who else is going to do it? No one has the ability to look and tackle
> this complex issue like Wikipedian community. No other community has the
> strength in numbers, intellect, and structure to address an issue like this.
> I guarantee that other groups will embrace any solutions the community
> finds, b/c its not Wikipedia is not only a pioneer, but its a
> "best-in-breed" virtual project that comes up with "best-in-breed"
> solutions.
>
>
>
> --
> Sandra Ordonez
> Web Astronaut
>
> "Helping you rock out in the virtual world."
>
> www.collaborativenation.com
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap
>
>



-- 
@notafish

NB. This gmail address is used for mailing lists. Personal emails will get lost.
Intercultural musings: Ceci n'est pas une endive - http://blog.notanendive.org
Photos with simple eyes: notaphoto - http://photo.notafish.org