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

Thu Feb 10 11:09:47 UTC 2011

And of all the emails sent recently on this list, this is probably my 
favorite :) Thank you to Delphine for asking the question. Thank you to 
Sandy to give it a try to answer.

Some emails on this list have been giving good points and good 
suggestions, but I do not think venting the various frustrations we have 
met on Wikipedia or in our professional life or in our personal life is 
going to really make for a big change.

My view would rather be that we indeed start with asking ourselves the 
question "What would women bring to Wikipedia ? Would that help us in 
our big dream to get more women participation ? "
- Because if the answer is "we need more women to reach our goal of 
collecting and bringing knowledge to the world", great.
- If the answer is "we need more women because equality should require 
that we have a 50%-50% men-women", then we fail. Making sure women are 
respected, listened to, involved, blablabla, is great. But that's not 
what we are collectively looking for. Our goal is not gender equality, 
right ?

Second, once we have identified the reason for more participation (if we 
have agreed it would be helpful), then we should identify what would be 
the indicators for success. Because again, forgive me for being bold... 
but if we set up an official goal of say-25% participation of women... 
then it means that what we are currently doing is working toward a goal 
of more "men-women equality". I personally do not care for this goal. I 
am here on Wikipedia to allow every one to have access to a complete, 
accurate, uptodate, neutral information. So, a goal of "more women" or a 
goal of "at least 25% women contributors" makes no sense to me.

If "improve the breadth of our articles" is our goal (to make sure 
lipstick and russian women biographies are properly covered), then set 
up a goal with regards to "content breadth". And implement a tracking 
system to follow evolution.

If "50% of women readers in north african countries" is our goal, then 
set up a goal with regards to "readership stats". And implement a 
tracking system to follow "readership stats".

If "getting good PR so that the press loves us and so that big 
foundations give us cash" is our goal, then set up a goal with regards 
to "25% women participation". And implement a tracking system to follow 
women participation and buzz the results.

But as long as we do not know what our "goals" are, it is weird to 
define indicators of success and weird to rely on stats that carry 
little significance.

Third, when goals and indicators are set up (and perhaps different 
groups will have different goals and indicators), then it will be time 
to foster the best conditions so that this happens over time. Some will 
choose a totally western strategy and organize "women day", "women 
awards", "special projects for women". Others will choose a more 
let-it-be strategy, merely avoiding the least favorable paths and 
influencing to get us on favorable paths. Usually, Wikipedians strategy 
is rather of the second type.

For those who understand French, I have blogged on the topic here: 
http://www.anthere.org/post/2011/02/09/Wikipedia%2C-les-femmes-et-la-philosophie-du-non-agir

Anthere

On 2/8/11 2:13 PM, Sandra ordonez 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 <http://www.collaborativenation.com>*
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gendergap mailing list
> Gendergap at lists.wikimedia.org
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/gendergap

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/gendergap/attachments/20110210/813de441/attachment-0001.htm 