Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Countering systemic bias
WikiProject icon This article is supported by the Countering systemic bias WikiProject, which provides a central location to counter systemic bias on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
 
WikiProject Feminism (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Gender Studies (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Gender Studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Wikipedia. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article has been marked as needing immediate attention.
WikiProject Wikipedia (Rated Start-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of itself. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page. Please remember to avoid self-references and maintain a neutral point of view on topics relating to Wikipedia.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

For a start[edit]

I see that this article has many maintenance templates, but no talk page comments. For a start, the bias [sic] contained in this article could be reduced by moving it to "Gender gap/imbalance on Wikipedia", as the current one implies that the Wikimedia Foundation has a policy that has led to the current state of affairs in this matter. Toccata quarta (talk) 08:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Either one of those would work. G S Palmer (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
I do not agree. First, I cannot see where "the current one implies that the Wikimedia Foundation has a policy that has led to the current state of affairs in this matter". Second, "Gender gap/imbalance on Wikipedia" does not cover things like "claims to an air of misogyny or hyper-sexualism". Sophia-ka (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to move it to Gender imbalance on Wikipedia. If you have any strong objections, then have it moved back. G S Palmer (talk) 16:32, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I've moved it back, because "bias" can mean both "discrimination" and "imbalance", and is therefore a better title. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 15:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Men’s Rights Agency, not a WP:RS[edit]

This source is not reliable. Please read about us : it is not an academic source, just an activists web site, claiming that "men and boys relegated to second class citizen status". This does not seem very trustworthy. Sophia-ka (talk) 13:04, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

I might agree, if it was used to back up anything else. However, it is not being used to support any point other than that some people (in this case the Men's Rights Agency) have a different opinion. G S Palmer (talk) 14:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Neither the Men's Rights Agency or Dean Esmay are notable - wouldn't this inclusion be WP:UNDUE? PearlSt82 (talk) 17:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
  • What Pearl said. Random men's rights blogs don't warrant inclusion in the lede (or for that matter, probably anywhere else in, unless we get some secondary reliable sources talking about it) of this article.) Kevin Gorman (talk) 01:19, 7 May 2014 (UTC)
Activists web sites are quoted all the time in articles. Go to any LGBT articles and you will see that there are many activist sources that are quoted of questionable notability. Are they all unreliable because they are activists? That argument is a fallacy as it has nothing to due with whether they hold an opinion contrary to others but whether their claims can be substaniated. You must prove it is unreliable and that is not the same as something which you have opposing political views. Proof takes much more work than many of those who choose to simply character assasinate a source are willing and/or capable of doing. In reality this article is an activist opinion about a reality some activists are disappointed in and one should always exercise caution around activist opinions but that does not mean they should be dismissed simply for being activists. There are valid points that are brought up by activists that are often being ignored by the group think of the masses. 24.177.109.112 (talk) 18:08, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
See WP:SPS. They can be published as sources on their own activities and views only, as long as it's not about third parties, especially named ones. Just because there are articles were WP:SPS are used incorrectly, doesn't mean it's right to keep doing it where people object. There are a few "activist" research sites which generally are accepted as sources of facts, but in some circumstances those too can be challenged. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:44, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
As Carolmooredc said, just because some articles use blogs as sources doesn't mean this one has to. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 18:50, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
And where is the proof that they are a WP:SPS? They may have a bias, but that does not disqualify it as a RS, per WP:BIASED. Tutelary (talk) 20:41, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
  • Last comment refers to an organization defending men's rights as a blog which is not the case as it is a well established organization dealing with men's issues in today's western society. Much the same as NOW. I would also point out it is incorrect to use unreliable sources whether anyone objects or not. Unfortunately that common sense often does not apply to wikipedia as consensus and group think often trump credibility. 24.177.109.112 (talk) 20:28, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of Reagle and Rhue[edit]

Howdy, the statement about word length from R&R2010 is not accurate approriate as it says "the median analysis does not imply a consistent relationship between article length and gender." Also, better summaries of the article include:

  1. Wikipedia dominates Britannica in biographical coverage, but more so when it comes to men.
  2. Britannica is more balanced in whom it neglects to cover than Wikipedia. --Reagle (talk) 13:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
I agree. The problem in measuring the gendergap is how do you show how much Wikipedia is negecting subjects? I was looking at the categories for male vs female headgear on Commons and I think the lack of pictures sort of says it all. We should try to set up a yearly measurement for such examples. They need to be uncontroversial (no question that the subject is encyclopedic, and also not something that is the subject of any current disputes). Jane (talk) 12:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to edit the prose myself since no action has been taken to correct the summary. -Reagle (talk) 11:23, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
This is an important issue. In order to measure bias, we need data with which to compare coverage in the encyclopedias to the incidence of the subjects in the population. So, for example, how do we measure the relative incidences of male-headgear and female-headgear in the world? We need to know what that is. Then, we can compare it to the number of related articles in WP and Britannica? Do we have sources which have made rigorous statistical inferences or is the data casual or incomplete observation? SPECIFICO talk 11:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
But even here you have to be careful. Traditional "male" headgear, police helmets, soldier's hats, are now no longer exclusively so. Moreover the incidence of "hat wearing" varies historically, by socio-economic class, and geographically. So one might be hit with all sorts of confounding variables.
The most robust work I have seen compares "male" film and "female" film coverage, and should perhaps be cited if it is not already. Even this is not above legitimate criticism. All the best: Rich Farmbrough14:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

Potential source[edit]

I don't know if this might be useful in any way, either to support existing content or to add some new stuff. G S Palmer (talk) 17:43, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Here's another one, and a few of the articles linked from it might be of use also. G S Palmer (talk) 17:35, 22 May 2014 (UTC)
Such as this. G S Palmer (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

I just removed this from the external links - if someone could find a way to work it into the article as a ref, that would be great. G S Palmer (talk) 13:32, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

I just removed these from the external links too. Collapsing for convenience:

G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 15:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

"Policies" section[edit]

I have removed, twice, a section of text entitled "policies". Magsmacaulay (talk · contribs) makes the sometimes-correct point that they are independent and reliable; for the most part I don't contest this fact (though a wikipedia talk page isn't "independent", but that's an inappropriate citation for other reasons as well). The issue is that the entire section was substantially original research. Many if not most of the sources didn't mention wikipedia at all. One in particular couldn't, as it was a book published in 1986. The myriad disparate sources were synthesized by Magsmacaulay to create a new idea about wikipedia's policies that isn't made anywhere else; wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. I looked at most of the sources and couldn't find any that actually verified the text they were appended to; instead most cited examples of the behaviour alleged in the section. This isn't appropriate. If any reliable sources explicitly make the point that wikipedia's policies systematically discourage participation by women, include and summarize them. Don't make the case for them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I have already told WLU that I find his editing practices hostile and unwelcoming to me as a newcomer. It's clear to me he doesn't see the irony in policing a section I added about how certain policies of Wikipedia make it an uneven playing field for women. Further it is untrue that my sources do not talk about Wikipedia, as a few are actually critical of policies like "neutrality", "notability" and "reliable sources". These ideas are being explored by academics who write about it online (I have cited them). Our field is changing, and as academics we often feel that we should be public intellectuals and make our ideas accessible (read: free of charge) for people. Probably most of you would agree that pay-walled sources aren't your faves. Anyway, I ask that the section stay because the primary readers of this page would likely be people who are interested in knowing more about the issue. I think some contextual assessment is important in this case. Maybe there are situations where following the rules to a tee are useful but I don't think it is as important, given the subject matter. If Wikipedia is actually serious about including more women, then you have to change things to make it seem to us like contributing is worth our time. That certainly hasn't been my experience and the same has been true for a number of my female friends. Though I suppose what I'm saying is somehow less credible since it's not published in a journal article or book :)femmebot 17:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay (talkcontribs)

I have explained why I removed the text, citing policy and guideline to justify. My alleged hostility is beside the point and illusory as my above explanation is perfectly civil. The few sources you cited that actually mentioned wikipedia either did not address this specific point, or were not reliable (blog posts for instance). Feel free to rebuild the section using reliable sources that explicitly discuss wikipedia's policies and how they enact a gender bias, please omit the rest. Blog posts, bar the rare exception of a notable academic or minor clarifications of facts, aren't suitable. Pay wall sources are perfectly acceptable; sources don't need to be convenient to be used.
The standard for including text isn't whether a reader would be interested, it is the neutral summary of reliable sources in line with what wikipedia is. You appear to be asking for us to ignore all rules; that can be done, if a local consensus establishes that this improves the wiki. I don't feel it does. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Washington Free Beacon title is POV[edit]

I've neutralized POV language which was sourced to a (biased) headline in the Washington Free Beacon: "Government-Funded Study: Why Is Wikipedia Sexist?" This is obviously an unscientific phrasing for an academic study, a point which seems to have escaped certain polemicists...

Here is the way the National Science Foundation grant is described on the academic home page of Yale Sociology professor Dr. Julia Adams:

"In 2013, Adams was awarded a two-year National Science Foundation grant for collaborative research with Hannah Brueckner (Associate Dean of Social Science, NYU-Abu Dhabi) on “Wikipedia and the Democratization of Academic Knowledge.” The investigators are exploring gender-specific patterns of representation of scholars and scholarship. One of the project’s goals is to contribute to improving quality and reducing bias on academic – and more general – Wikipedia." LINK.

Awwww, that's not nearly as much fun, is it? Carrite (talk) 08:09, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Reverted change. Even the website you linked above, says, as you note above: "one of the project’s goals is to contribute to improving quality and reducing bias on academic – and more general – Wikipedia." They are studying bias not simply the disparity, so your change of "bias against women" to "gender disparity" doesn't seem accurate.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 13:40, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
  • BoboMeowCat - Annnnnnnd..... a POV flag is now up. This study began in 2013, not 2014. The Washington Free Beacon is not a reliable source. The phrasing is tendentious, assuming "sexism" — which the statement "one of the project’s goals is to contribute to improving quality and reducing bias on academic – and more general – Wikipedia." does not. Please restore my NPOV phrasing immediately. Carrite (talk) 16:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
"Sexism" is not the same as "bias resulting from gender disparity," by the way. Carrite (talk) 16:45, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't understand. The source might have used the word "sexism" but the edit in question didn't use the word "sexism", it uses phrase "bias against women". I"m confused why you find the phrase "bias against women" non-NPOV with respect to the National Science Foundation study.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:47, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Your favored source (which misdates the study, it being a 2013-, not a 2014-launched project, by the way) not only explicitly charges "sexism," it trumpets the fact in a sensational headline. I'll tweak the wording and sourcing of the paragraph in the next day or two and we'll see if we can come up with a couple NPOV lines we all can live with... Carrite (talk) 16:54, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're talking about. It's not "my favored source". I didn't originally add it. My objection was your change of text "bias against women" to "gender disparity" because "bias against women" was supported by both the Washington Free Beacon article and by the website you linked to, so your change did not seem accurate with respect to the sources cited. You've yet to address this and seem to keep shifting issues. If you've uncovered an error with the date, by all means fix it. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
First, I searched for something more RS than the Washington Free Beacon using the same title and actually found several from news sources which can be surmised to have fact checked, so it could be possible to use one of those. However, I hadn't found a source on the original study and was happy to see that. Will investigate further. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Systematic removal of Washington Post source[edit]

Reference to a tangential issue, expressed in the following source, has been tag-team removed from the article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2014/08/04/mens-rights-activists-think-a-hateful-feminist-conspiracy-is-ruining-wikipedia/

The irony of the charge of ideological bias in Wikipedia being redacted away for apparently POV reasons seems self-evident.

This also needs to be discussed and remedied before the POV flag is removed. Carrite (talk) 16:42, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Caitlin Dewey does a good job of pointing out the disparity between their claims and their actual behavior on Wikipedia. I agree with other editors that the MRA position on this issue falls under WP:FRINGE and doesn't belong here. PearlSt82 (talk) 16:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Where was it stated that this is an MRA position of them? Additionally, you can't just qualify or state something is WP:FRINGE without demonstrating why as if to dismiss the entire thing. Else, I could just state that your position is WP:FRINGE and not respond anymore, while continually and incessantly saying that it is. Tutelary (talk) 16:51, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The initial article was written by Dean Esmay of A Voice For Men - the Dewey article identifies it as MRA (in the title) and notes that their claims regarding this issue are groundless. If issues are groundless, does that not make the assertions of them to be fringe? PearlSt82 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
It does not make them out to be fringe, and it's kind of a sketchy area on where we define WP:FRINGE. The most common example is flat earth people, but it gets rather muddy when you do it to other groups. For example, how do we define it? Just that with we disagree with much? That a ton of people hate? Who defines it? What's the exact percentage who are pro/con? It's just a muddy one. To me, it's not a fringe position, but a minority one that I can see, yes. Though what was being done for this specific article is that it would attribute opinions of the minority group to its WP:DUE weight, maybe a sentence or so. Whether that's undue weight or not can be questioned, but I think as long as it's short enough and is in the right spot, it's encyclopedic to mention imho. If you look at the edit which was reverted, it's actually pretty tame, but it does need more attribution to get it out of Wiki's voice. I'm guessing you're still opposed? Tutelary (talk) 17:16, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I have re-written the para to address some of these issues, and, joined it with the previous para. Certainly The Washington Post is a RS. Memills (talk) 17:22, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I think the current state of the article gives undue weight to the idea that Wikipedia is biased against men. It seems to me that the Washington Post article does not take Esmay's views very seriously at all. It points out that Esmay "sees feminist conspiracies in many unassuming places", uses "inflammatory phrasings", and is "controversial" (x2), and also disputes Esmay's claims with respect to Wikipedia, saying that "the talk pages tell a slightly different story" and calling many of Esmay's claims "groundless".
I would support the removal of this information from the article altogether. If it must be kept, I would rephrase it as something like "It has been argued that men's rights related articles on Wikipedia have been subject to censorship by feminist editors, but there is little evidence to support this claim." (a statement which is supported by the Washington Post article) —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 18:00, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure this even belongs, the bias being claimed is towards a particular Socio-political ideology, and not specifically a gender. In essence, a bias for or against feminism is not necessarily a bias for or against women. And the article is more about a perceived pro-feminist bias. --Kyohyi (talk) 18:05, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I think that is a bit of a stretch. Certainly, a claim of anti-feminist bias in articles about feminism would certainly deserve mention in this article on the grounds it is related to gender. The Washington Post article is essentially an opinion/editorial piece. As such, it should be mentioned that the "author of the article believes" that many of the claims made in the Voice for Men article are groundless. Memills (talk) 18:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The tone of the WP article is clearly one of ridicule and this viewpoint is treated as fringe by Dewey. The structure of the article and the sensationalist headline empathise this. Regardless, this is not "censorship" against men or even "censorship by feminists", it's a viewpoint that doesn't really hold any weight. There is a similar article on Wikipediocracy analysing these claims [1] and again, they seem to be groundless. Desmay himself is not banned and none of his edits relating to men's rights articles were undone, if there is any censorship by feminists then it certainly didn't happen to him. It's likely that this is just further antifeminist propaganda. Either way, both are opinion pieces, and neither state sources saying that there is or isn't such censorship, they just assert it. Are we going to start citing personal blog entries next? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Furthermore, you state that "The Washington Post article is essentially an opinion/editorial piece. As such, it should be mentioned that the author of the article believes that many of the claims made in the Voice for Men article are groundless.", but this is the only source that supports even including it in article. Why bother? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
...because the article was published by The Washington Post and it was written by one of its editors. Such articles are both notable and a RS. Memills (talk) 18:32, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, I don't think that they're notable... G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 18:48, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
Well yes, but the inclusion, if made, has to cover what it said by the source. Structuring it around the original complaint by Esmay is strange as this is treated as a fringe complaint within the source in the first place --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:46, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what the treatment of men's rights articles has to do with the high amount of male editors anyway. The article states: "The gender bias of Wikipedia is connected with the fact that the majority of editors are male, and coverage of articles about men and male-related subjects is generally more extensive than coverage of articles about women and female-related subjects." What does the opinion a fringe antifeminist group have to do with the bias against women on website in this context? --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:50, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
This WP article is about gender bias, not just bias against women.
You removed the the brief sentence that basically covered what The Washtington Post article was about: the claims that were made, and the author's opinion that most of the claims were groundless. The fringe criteria is pretty stringent (e.g., flat earthers). While the MRM may be and unpopular and a minority perspective, it isn't fringe. Memills (talk) 18:56, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The idea that there is a feminist conspiracy running Wikipedia isn't too different from flat earthers when you think of it. Either way, I don't think it has WP:DUE weight to be included here, the reference itself is an opinion piece and doesn't include any statistics for or against the idea that there is such a feminist conspiracy --80.193.191.143 (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
No one suggested that "there is a feminist conspiracy running Wikipedia." The claim is that articles related to the MRM and men's issues are censored by feminists. These claims are not new -- they have been repeatedly made on Talk pages by many WP editors, most of whom do not self-identify as MRAs. And, believe me, if we required that articles, even scholarly ones, that did not include statistics be jettisoned, many of the citations to journals of feminist theory and scholarship would have to be jettisoned. Shouldn't be a double standard here, even if I just WP:DONTLIKE it. Again, the fact that the article was published by The Washington Post by one of its editors makes it both notable and a RS. Memills (talk) 19:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
What exactly gives it WP:DUE weight as an example of gender bias though? The focus of this article is, primarily, the gender gap. I don't think we should equate bias of editors against the men's rights movement and that against men either. It's the actions of the movement that are controversial, not its aims. Oh, and drop the WP:DONTLIKE, it doesn't help anybody, and your own personal bias is clear --80.193.191.143 (talk) 19:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
The title of the subsection of the article is "Gender bias in articles."
However, at this point, I think we need to accept that we disagree. Time to let others to weigh in, and, perhaps request a peer review WP:PR. Memills (talk) 19:20, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
I think it's a little early for a peer review (and that seems a little extravagant for one source) so yeah, best to let others weigh in --80.193.191.143 (talk) 19:40, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I thought the general rule was that we do not use op-eds from newspapers for anything? News stories, yes; op-eds, no. - Sitush (talk) 13:56, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

From WP:NEWSORG: " "News reporting" from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. ...Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces, whether written by the editors of the publication (editorials) or outside authors (op-eds) are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. When taking information from opinion content, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint." (italics added) Memills (talk) 14:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for quoting that passage. I don't think the Washington Post article provides evidence that Esmay's opinion is a significant viewpoint—Esmay is not a recognized expert on the subject of Wikipedia, and his opinion doesn't even match the opinion of the author of the Washington Post article. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
That's what I mean - in practice, we don't use them. - Sitush (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia"[edit]

The article needs to make clear when it and its sources are referring to English-language Wikipedia and when they're referring to other language variants and/or the entirety of WMF-hosted Wikipedias. As it stands, it looks like an article about gender bias is in fact massively biassed in other ways. Have there even been any studies covering all of the various languages? - Sitush (talk) 13:51, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor[edit]

VisualEditor effectively did not go live until mid-July 2013. The source for "including the introduction of VisualEditor,[5] which have as yet been unable to effectively bridge the gender imbalance." was published on 11 August 2013. I find it hard to believe that in that short interval anyone even ran any meaningful gender bias metrics analysing its impact, let alone ones that could meaningfully affect the other stats that Gardner was making. It looks like a big dollop of journalistic license to me, or else a complete misuse of the source in the article. - Sitush (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Visual Editor has never even been tried as a solution, since they still haven't rolled out a completed product. There seems no doubt that VE is seen as part of the initiative to close the gender gap. See the newly released Wikimedia Deutschland report which is now up in Further Reading. Carrite (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes. So it shouldn't be in the lead in its present form. The inference at present is that even VE hasn't made a difference. VE might be part of the strategy for fixing the problem but that is another section and, I notice, it is a section that we conspicuously lack. - Sitush (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
This amazes me. Was Visual Editor seen as a remedy to gender bias because "girls get confused by markup text" or something like that? This is obviously false, but it would surprise me to learn that it was advanced in support of a new interface. Can somebody fill us in on the facts concerning this? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 17:14, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The idea was that it will/would make editing easier because you wouldn't need to know the markup etc. Since, allegedly, women are more likely to be put off by the markup then men, one effect of it would be to potentially encourage women to edit. I don'rt know whether that outcome was explicitly stated or not but it would be valid in the context of the gender gap studies, assuming of course that the gender gap studies are actually valid in the first place. - Sitush (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. Among the men and women with whom I am familiar, there is no gender-related difference with respect to their comfort with markup text. If there was no identified empirical basis for this conclusion, it appears to be a prima facie example of gender bias and an example of how such bias can misdirect efforts to find effective solutions to the real underlying problem. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Definitely needs to be tossed from the lede. I remember at the time hearing the "let's make it easier for women because they are intimidated by the technology" argument - and that concept was generally considered offensive. So unless you want to add "ill-formed, unsubstantiated decision by the male editors causing the problem that somehow wp needed to be dumbed-down to attract women editors..." OK, I'm ranting. Off soapbox now. But toss the VE bit from the lead. Montanabw(talk) 18:09, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Gender bias in articles[edit]

The Reagle/Rhue source is not even mentioned in the Lam et al study. Therefore, "Wikipedia has been claimed to have more detail in articles about men, with the rate of coverage of females on average, around 100 words less than males on selected articles.[3] It has been suggested that this may be because Wikipedia possesses "... a culture that may be resistant to female participation."[6]" is likely synthesis. - Sitush (talk) 14:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I think this whole equation of length = quality and the making of sweeping claims about wikipedia content based on extremely small, non-randomly selected sample populations is fairly silly. I don't doubt that biographies of women, etc., are not as well covered as those of men. But, really, the truly massive disparity on WP isn't a male/female content divide, it is towards deep coverage of contemporary topics and poor coverage of historical ones. And we haven't even scratched the issue of Global North v. Global South content disparity or racial content disparity — which are also more serious problems than the gender content disparity, in my opinion. Carrite (talk) 17:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
I agree. But I'm trying to operate within the constraints of this article. And those two statements don't really connect in a policy-compliant manner. - Sitush (talk) 17:04, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough. I rambled. Carrite (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Date format[edit]

MOS:DATEUNIFY and WP:DATERET say to use the style adopted by the article. It does not require that accessdate be in yyyy-mm-dd format, does it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia&diff=620590333&oldid=620590117

--Lightbreather (talk) 05:50, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

There was a discussion about this recently somewhere and the outcome was yyyymmdd. FWIW, I'm not too happy about you adding entirely unnecessary ref names either but I'm not going to alter it. There are enough long-winded discussions knocking around at the moment. - Sitush (talk) 06:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't believe your reference to a recent discussion "somewhere" trumps the MOS. Also, I'm here to improve articles, not to make others happy. Ref names make it easier to use sources multiple times, which comes in handy when developing content. You don't need to chastise others' good-faith contributions. Lightbreather (talk) 06:10, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Do what the fuck hell you want then. Revert me. I'm utterly fed up of dealing with you, who has so much good faith that you've set up what amounts to an anti-WP twitter feed. - Sitush (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
Lightbreather, it all depends on the article, Sitush may be right that there was a discussion of the matter, but I have an article at FAC right now where folks insisted that I change all the yyyy-mm-dd dates to mm-dd-yyyy dates, so at the moment, I'd say just be consistent and if someone else wants to change every single one of them to a different format, then whatever, not worth the drama. Also, this sort of question is best at the MOS talk pages if needed. Montanabw(talk) 07:30, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
The discussion was actually at MOS talk. All the best: Rich Farmbrough13:50, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

Domains[edit]

@LawrencePrincipe: large chunks of this edit seem to be redundant and/or overly complex to me. Can it be simplified? - Sitush (talk) 10:04, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Signpost as a source[edit]

Is the Signpost an acceptable source? Yasseri, Taha; Liao, Han-Teng; Konieczny, Piotr; Morgan, Jonathan; Bayer, Tilman (31 July 2013). "Recent research — Napoleon, Michael Jackson and Srebrenica across cultures, 90% of Wikipedia better than Britannica, WikiSym preview". The Signpost. Wikipedia.  (from this article) Lightbreather (talk) 21:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

No, the Signpost is part of Wikipedia, and Wikipedia does not consider itself an acceptable source. So the Signpost should not be used as a source. Cardamon (talk) 23:42, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Like so many things it "depends what for". Although the Signpost posted on-wiki is subject to "editing by anyone", a perma-link can be made to the version used. Moreover I believe there is a mailing list, which again is not subject to open editing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough12:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

Updating statistics on women editors[edit]

The January 2011 New York Times article stating 13% women quotes a first preliminary survey. There have been several more since citing lower numbers. Here's a blog link from 2012. (It also has a useable graphic: File:Wikipedia_editors_are_predominantly_male.png) See also this survey link. This Atlantic magazine article also quotes the later, lower statistic. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:41, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

What the NYT means is that 13% identify as women - newspapers are crap at the detail and there is a massive difference. Avoid WP-generated stats would be my gut reaction. Where did the Atlantic magazine get its info from, and what the heck is it? I know what NYT is but the same applies there, really: I'll have to re-read it and find out where the info came from. For example, the idea that we might overly rely on the opinions of Sue Gardner rankles a bit with me: as a figurehead, yes, she has a voice but she really did have some daft notions in other spheres.
And I'm still waiting for someone to tell me which "Wikipedia" is being referred to in all these studies etc (see section above). For example, female participation in Indic-language Wikipedias is almost certainly far less than in the English one. - Sitush (talk) 23:56, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps, but they have the most aggressive campaign of workshops and other events to bring women in. Will be listing some soon. Or search around. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 01:54, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't have time to figure it out now, but obviously different researchers are using different numbers and I'm wondering where they are getting them from if not the two different 2011 Wikimedia Foundation surveys. (2011 (Nov. 2010-April 2011) and November 2011 (April - October 2011)). So should we be using their numbers in our summaries if they are from these studies or mention any explanation they may have of why their numbers differ from the studies or just not bother to mention numbers if their source is unexplained/dubious -- or other options?? Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 04:18, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
Continuing putting materials together I realized a possible source of confusion. These images, which represent research findings (which I personally haven't read in detail) show there's a difference even in the late 2011 survey between:
Even August 5th BBC article fudges the numbers as being "The proportion of editors identifying as female hovers between 8% and 15%". So figuring out why these numbers are poorly presented and correcting it for the media would be helpful. Another GG Task force project, I guess. Unless someone figures it out here :-) Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
The 9% figure comes from here. This is not unproblematic, since there may be a huge gender bias in who fills out lengthy surveys. Also there is bad wording with a question about knowledge of the "gender divide" instead of "gender gap", which may bias responses. The important Q D16 was directed only at females, (and has other issues), so there is no control group. The gender question was the last but one, and the results of D16 are missed out of the anonymised data. All the best: Rich Farmbrough12:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC).
Note that @Koavf: raised with the author of this graphic that it is a misleading graph. The depth of the disc is coloured "male" giving a distorted visual impression. A simple pie chart might be better. All the best: Rich Farmbrough13:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

Research findings[edit]

I spent a couple hours this afternoon reworking the Research findings section. I left a summary/lead sentence at the top - which if anyone can improve, please do - but about the journalists' commentary: I preserved a lot of those sources in the Further reading section because they were mostly clumped together at the end of one sentence, like this:

There has been concern expressed regarding systemic gender bias on Wikipedia, which has been associated with the selection of articles which are maintained.[1][2][3][4][5]
  1. ^ Cohen, Noam (30 January 2011). "Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List". New York Times. Retrieved 2011-01-31. 
  2. ^ Gleick, James (29 April 2013). "Wikipedia's Women Problem". New York Review of Books (NYREV). Retrieved 2013-11-19. 
  3. ^ Filipacchi, Amanda (24 April 2013). "Wikipedia's Sexism Toward Women Novelists". New York Times (op-ed). 
  4. ^ Morris, Kevin (1 May 2013). "Does Wikipedia's sexism problem really prove that the system works?". The Daily Dot. Retrieved 2013-11-19. 
  5. ^ Zandt, Deanna (26 April 2013). "Yes, Wikipedia is Sexist". Forbes. Retrieved 2013-11-19. 

Cassell was at the beginning of that set of citations, but she's not a journalist, and I've worked her into the section elsewhere.

But mostly, I am tired now (dinnertime), and I think we could write something more meaningful for the reader using this handful of sources. --Lightbreather (talk) 00:58, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm finally starting to put all the material I found on Gender Gap list and other places together in a formatted list - including some new things you have here. Hopefully will have a draft up of at least the news articles and research material in a couple days. There is quite a bit, for sure! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 03:22, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Reagle and Rhue[edit]

Could someone who is better at reading these things look this over and come up with a brief summary paragraph?

The International Journal of Communication published research by Reagle and Lauren Rhue that found Wikipedia has more detail in articles about men, with the rate of coverage of females on average, around 100 words less than males on selected biographical articles.[1]
  1. ^ Reagle, Joseph; Rhue, Lauren (2011). "Gender Bias in Wikipedia and Britannica". International Journal of Communication (Joseph Reagle & Lauren Rhue) 5: 1138-1158. 

I feel that single sentence doesn't do the report justice. For one, it's not mentioned that the authors compared Wikipedia to Britannica. And I can't find the "100 words less" evidence - but reading this thing makes my head hurt, so someone who is better at it, please? It seems that WP is better than Britannica in some respects when it comes to gender balance/coverage, but not in others. It is from the "Research findings" section. Thanks. Lightbreather (talk) 01:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Lightbreather I have improved it (see above) -Reagle (talk) 16:47, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Excellent. Thank you. Lightbreather (talk) 17:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
The abstract says "For both reference works, article length did not consistently differ by gender." It's worrying that we could report the opposite conclusion. I read this paper at the time, and it would be interesting to see updated figures. All the best: Rich Farmbrough13:46, 24 August 2014 (UTC).

Original Research, No Original Research[edit]

LawrencePrinciple is attempting to insert original research with this edit (now twice reverted) into this article by bringing up citations and a paragraph that has nothing to do with Wikipedia in any context. The reference is dealing with workplaces, not with online communities, and it's original research to connect the citation or the paragraph to Wikipedia. Tutelary (talk) 18:00, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Another user has blanked out a section dealing with "Cures for Gender Bias" to go along with the "Causes for Gender Bias" section. There is No Original Research in this edit. The text of the section contains no issues against WP:NOR, it is derived from Professor Schermerhorn's book as follows,
Cures
The extensive literature in the management practices and economics of organizational behavior has provided many guidelines and policy approaches for establishing desirable diversity practices such as those countering gender bias in the workplace of both for-profit organizations and non-profit organizations such as Wikipedia. Historically, undesirable patterns of bias have been addressed in the past, dealing with such complex issues as ethnicity, race, religion, and gender. The approaches for addressing these undesirable patterns of bias have shown a great deal of carry-over between effective methodologies which work in correcting one area of bias being applied to correct other types of bias with the purpose of establishing useful diversity. (Schermerhorn, Organizational Behavior, Edition Twelve.)
Jimmy Wales has called for "doubling down" on the issue of gender disparity at Wikipedia earlier this month for the BBC. The field of Organizational Behavior is the field which offers these doubling down methodologies under the heading of enhanced "Diversity" goals. Another user wishes to blank out this material which contains no original research. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 18:53, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me ask a simple question; Where in the source did it mention Wikipedia specifically? If it mentions Wikipedia specfiically, then it's not original research and I'll back off. But, if they don't mention Wikipedia, then it's original research to 'connect the dots' and attempt to apply this source towards Wikipedia. Tutelary (talk) 18:56, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, though the connection has to be through Wikimedia first. Professor Schermerhorn indicates that the study of Organizational Behavior applies to all non-profit and for-profit institutions. Wikimedia is federally registered as a non-profit institution. I did not think of making the distinction of the Wikimedia to Wikipedia relation in the edit due to wordiness, still if you prefer to adapt the language to do so then it would cover all the bases. Schermerhorn's book has gone through twelve editions and is recognized as representing the majority weight opinion in this field. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 19:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Even so, in order to include Schermerhorn's work in the article, we need a reliable source that explicitly connects it to Wikipedia's gender gap. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 19:52, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that is documented at the link for Wikimedia Foundation, and the Wikimedia Foundation is explicitly registered federally as a non-profit institution in Washington as a 501(c)(3) charitable organization under the I.R.S. code. Schermerhorn's claim is that Organizational Behavior as a field applies to all non-profit and for-profit institutions. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Let me be clearer: We need a reliable source that specifically mentions Schermerhorn's research AND specifically mentions Wikipedia's gender gap, and draws a connection between the two. Drawing the connection yourself is original research. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:11, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
That is the opposite of Professor Schermerhorn's claim that his methodology applies to all non-profit and for-profit institutions. Since I have provided that verification that Wikimedia is a non-profit institution, then the material is qualified as verifiable. If you now wish to exclude the Schermerhorn claim, then it is for you to provide a citation which counters Schermerhorn's claim. Schermerhorn's book has gone through 12 editions and it does represent the majority weight consensus in the field. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 20:27, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
No, we don't. It's up to you to have a citation that's directly ontopic to the page 'Gender bias on Wikipedia'. We're not talking about nonprofit institution, the topic at hand is 'Gender bias on Wikipedia'. Unless your citation specifically mentions that when you're describing it, it -is- original research and cannot be included. Additionally, the WP:BURDEN is on you, not me to find a citation for it. Tutelary (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
The problem is that you write "his methodology applies to all non-profit and for-profit institutions" and "I have provided that verification that Wikimedia is a non-profit institution". This connection is one that you have drawn, not someone else, and is therefore original research. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 21:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Generally speaking sources that do not specifically mention the topic in question are original research. I didn't have the energy to remove it on that basisa few days back, though I did remove a lot of excess verbiage. When in doubt, find other references on the same or similar topics that mention wikipedia. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 22:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales has just requested that Wikipedia start "doubling down" on the issue of gender bias. There is one major field of study which helps institutions which have trouble with systemic bias based on ethnicity, race, religion, and gender, by providing a large number of methodologies for removing these biases from for-profit and non-profit institutions. Schermerhorn is one prominent scholar who states that organizational behavior is the field which can be used by all institutions to deal with these bias problems including gender bias. All four editors above appear to be stating that because Wikimedia has not hired an expert in this field to publish an article stating that "Wikimedia is an example of a non-profit institution to which the field of organization behavior can be applied", therefore this Wikiproject should ignore all of the methodologies which the field of organizational behavior has to offer for correcting bias problems wherever they occur. Schermerhorn's claim is in essential agreement with these 6 further citations;
Robbins, Stephen P. (2004) Organizational Behavior - Concepts, Controversies, Applications. 4th Ed. Prentice Hall ISBN 0-13-170901-1.
Scott, W. Richard (2007). Organizations and Organizing: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems Perspectives. Pearson Prentice Hall ISBN 0-13-195893-3.
Weick, Karl E. (1979). The Social Psychology of Organizing 2nd Ed. McGraw Hill ISBN 0-07-554808-9.
Simon, Herbert A. (1997) Administrative Behavior: A Study of Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organizations, 4th ed., The Free Press.
Tompkins, Jonathan R. (2005) "Organization Theory and Public Management". Thompson Wadsworth ISBN 978-0-534-17468-2.
Kanigel, R. (1997). The One Best Way, Frederick Winslow Taylor and the Enigma of Efficiency. London: Brown and Co.
Morgan, Gareth (1986) Images of Organization Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
If the 4 editors here prefer not to pursue these methodological options from the field of organizational behavior further, then consensus should be established. Otherwise, it is not for any editor at Wikipedia to tell Schermerhorn that his results are excluded from use in Wikipedia because his book only indicates methodologies for non-profit institutions in general, and not Wikimedia in particular. There is no cite that says that Schermerhorn is non-applicable to Wikipedia. (@Tutelary, @Carolmooredc, @G S Palmer, @Mr. Granger) LawrencePrincipe (talk) 01:07, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
In the absence of any further discussion, if posting the above section with the 7 other references added (new citations) in the first sentence is acceptable, then I propose to repost the section with 7 new references after another day or so for responses. That will make it a total of 8 citations in the new section titled "Cures for gender bias" for answering Jimmy Wales' call for "doubling down" on finding new methodologies for dealing with the gender bias issue. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:18, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no cite that says that Schermerhorn is non-applicable to Wikipedia. This is the same argument used by UFO theorists. It has no place in the article if it doesn't specifically mention Wikipedia. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 00:25, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
No, it's not acceptable. As has been explained repeatedly, you need to find a source that specifically mentions both Schermerhorn's research and Wikipedia's gender gap. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 00:27, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@G S Palmer; The Schermerhorn claim is that the established field of Organizational Behavior applies to all organizations. He is joined in this opinion by the 7 (seven) other citations presented above. To exclude Wikipedia-Wikimedia from the group of all organizations because it is not listed in particular appears as too much specificity. Is it your point to say that because Schermerhorn does not mention ATT, Exxon-Mobil, or IBM that this implies his field of study does not apply to them either? @Mr. Granger; This is a Wikiproject page intended to discuss alternatives and make suggestions for making improvements to the project being discussed. Jimmy Wales has just told us that the last four (4) years have failed to find a solution to help. The solution has not yet been found and therefore has not and cannot be documented for Wikipedia in particular until a solution is found for Wikipedia. Schermerhorn says that gender bias has been repaired throughout the world in many organizations, and that the field of Organizational Behavior can help in other organizations experiencing problems with gender bias. Why are you excluding Wikipedia from the group of all organizations? @Carolmooredc; The list of references for Organizational Behavior is now up to eight references, and I think that this is sufficient to support this field as not being a fringe theory. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
LawrencePrincipe, maybe you're confused. This is a Wikipedia article, not a WikiProject. Maybe you're looking for Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:02, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @LawrencePrincipe: it may apply to all organizations, but since it doesn't mention Wikipedia, it has no place in the article. What you are arguing is like saying that any overarching claim warrants mention in all the articles about subjects that might conceivably fall under it. The only place these citations belong is on an article about gender bias in general. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 13:10, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────While the no original research rule can be frustrating, the best way to see the positive angle is to think of it is, if this original research which doesn't mention Wikipedia is let in, what other stuff that you would hate to see in the article that doesn't mention Wikipedia might be then allowed in. Horrific possibilities. No Original research far more protects article topics than keeps out info that generally is relevant, but doesn't specifically mention the topic at hand. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 13:21, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Granger; No, no confusion, though I do read the two pages (the Wikiproject and this article) as providing mutually useful information. My concern here is that the existing "Causes" section does not have the normally corresponding "Cures" section to go along with it. There is no reason to exclude the corresponding section. Also, the question I placed to you above was a serious one, Why should Wikipedia-Wikimedia be excluded, by the concerns you raise, from the group of all organizations which Schermerhorn claims can be helped who are dealing with systemic problems with gender bias? @G S Palmer; The discussion of gender bias in general is highly pertinent. General approaches and general solutions to particular problems are part of how general methodologies such as those offered by the field of Organizational Behavior are intended to work. Are you saying that if general solutions exist for solving organizational Gender bias problems, then they should be excluded from use at Wikipedia because they do not mention Wikipedia by name? @Carolmooredc; Could you restate your last comment in light of Schermerhorn. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 13:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is saying that the Wikimedia Foundation shouldn't use Schermerhorn's work to fix the gender gap. Maybe they should. But this article should not propose new solutions for fixing the gender gap; it should only document what reliable sources have already said about the gender gap. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
@LawrencePrincipe: just because other articles tend to be written that way doesn't mean this article needs a corresponding "Cures" section. Of course, if you were to find other sources covering how to fix the gap, I'm sure you could write an acceptable section for this article. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 14:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
If what both @Mr. Granger and @G S Palmer are suggesting is applied then this makes it almost impractical to cover the very rich Schermerhorn material and its many useful suggestions for solving the gender gap problem. Only one of the issues dealing with administration can be saved at this time, following this very high bar for citations. This means putting Schermerhorn aside for the time being and going instead with the new Jemalniak book on Wikipedia who covers the management issue in particular separated from the Schermerhorn material in general. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 00:53, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for adding this (pretty well-cited) information. I still have some concerns, though—the paragraph seems to be implying that the "feedback cycle" of Matsa and Miller applies to Wikipedia administrators. Is this statement attributable to one of the sources cited, or is it WP:Original synthesis? —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 01:48, 27 August 2014 (UTC)
I've removed the apparent original synthesis. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 14:04, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
There is no original synthesis here. This edit was accepted by you and further edits were made by another editor to support the text further. You are reverting against two editors here against Wikipedia policy. Establish consensus on Talk page prior to reverting against two editors. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 05:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I think you may be seeing consensus where there isn't any. There definitely isn't one on this talk page; nor does other editors editing your boldly added text mean it has consensus. I have reverted your revert; you are required to discuss it per WP:BRD. G S Palmer (talkcontribs) 10:28, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The "glass ceiling" edit supported by 3 editors[edit]

(section break for ease of access)

@G S Palmer. There are 3 editors who have supported the "glass ceiling" edit. @Mr. Granger just stated above: "Thanks for adding this (pretty well-cited) information." Also, after the 'thanks', then Jinkinson (talk | contribs)‎ made some further supportive edits. @Mr. Granger then reversed direction and decided he didn't like it. The material is fully cited and both myself and @Jinkinson have been editing it. If you have an objection to the citations or feel that the authors of the citations are ill suited to their claims, then you may make you case here. The material presented in the edit has been thoroughly researched. LawrencePrincipe (talk) 15:11, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for being unclear, but I did not intend to indicate that I supported the edit. I thanked you, to be polite, but in my very next sentence I indicated my concern that the new information was original synthesis. After a few days went by and you didn't respond to this concern, I deleted the information. If you can provide a citation for the notion that the "feedback cycle" applies to Wikipedia administrators, then by all means re-add the information. —Mr. Granger (talk · contribs) 15:21, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
User:LawrencePrincipe. Perhaps you did not see my Draft of resources for the Gender Gap Task force? I believe it may have several studies regarding Wikipedia which are relevant to the currently original research material you are trying to insert. Please look at them and that may help solve the problem. Thanks. Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 18:53, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
The proposed edit re "glass ceiling" includes a reference to Jemielniak's book. That book does talk about administrators, but it makes no mention of a "glass ceiling", so I don't know why that is in the edit. I've read the excellent article by Cotter and Hermsen, which identifies four criteria to determine whether there is a glass ceiling. Based upon their criteria, there is no glass ceiling at Wikipedia. Note that the very highest levels, that of the board of trustees, is 50% women. The executive director is female. This is a key aspect of the Cotter and Hermsen work, which specifcally states that a gender imbalance, as is quite true of Wikipedia, does not necessarily imply a glass ceiling. There are gender gap issues worth addressing, but if you want to talk about a glass ceiling, you need to provide evidence that the term applies. Perhaps there are researchers other than Cotter and Hermsen who have different definitions, but unless the Cotter and Hermsen criteria are outliers, the term does not seem to apply.--S Philbrick(Talk) 16:50, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

Big listing of actual research, other sources[edit]

This is a draft of the new Resources page for the Gender Gap Task Force. Working on a few details before it goes live, but TONS of WP:RS from mainstream publications and actual research projects, as well as lots of links to what Wikipedians are actually doing.

Helpful for those who want to know the facts and have best sources for a really good article. One of these days I'll have time to work on this more myself!! Carolmooredc (Talkie-Talkie) 20:04, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The Jemielniak book has quite a few gender issue references. I cannot do anything on it at the moment, but I'll try to check them out, and see if any are missing from the list. For example:

I added one more. I think I have now reviewed all references (in Jemielniak) with the word gender in them (which means there could be references discussing gender issues, but not using the term in the title.) There were several others, but the others were in the list.--S Philbrick(Talk) 22:27, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Just gender bias?[edit]