On 11/13/06, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
Not really. Particaly when you consider it is likely that there are a number of wikipedians who would probably editify with a gender outside the normal two (Just wait untill some of our more ah sexualy illiberal critics notice http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Furry_Wikipedians)
I don't care how old you are. I don't care what sex you are. I don't care what skin shade you are. I don't care what sexual orientation you are. I don't care about your marital status.
I will care about the langue you speak and sometimes which country you are in when dealing with copyright issues.
You can say that all you want (and I feel the same), but if you are denying that gender is a factor in wikipedia, you're deluding yourself.
Wikipedia is clearly a place where men feels more comfortable than women and that is something that is a BAD thing.
Why?
Are you asking why wikipedia is a place where men are more comfortable, if men infact are more comfortable or why it's a bad thing? Sometimes you really need to reply with more than one word, it gets hard to understand.
If you are asking why it's a bad thing, here is a few suggestions: because they comprise more than half of the worlds population, because we need as many diverse views as possible, because having an enviroment where a huge group of people are severly underrepresantated can be damaging to the encyclopedia, ... You can easily make up ten more reasons for yourself, so take your pick.
You're so naive if you think this is irrelevant.
And a bunch of guys trying to ignore the issue is just making it worse.
Why?
Because it's stupid, and stupidity is bad. I don't understand why you are so opposed to the idea that we should work towards a solid representation of both genders on wikipedia. Since when is gender equality a bad thing?
Do you deny that we have a problem with this? Or did the 1:39 ratio not convince you?
--Oskar