Jump to content

Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 131.150.125.128 (talk) at 00:52, 12 November 2021 (→‎Speaking of gender bias on wikipedia...: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isabelmadison (article contribs). This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yzhou19 (article contribs).


Archives (Index)

This page is archived by ClueBot III.

Top Paragraph

I clarified the opening paragraph because the current bias is clearly against women and should be stated as such. If or when this changes in the future then it should be moved further down in the article to a history section. TheKevlar 06:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

As it stands the opening sentence is a little unclear. Does it mean that 'Wikipedia contributors nominate women's biographies for deletion at a greater rate than for men, and incidentally, Wikipedia contributors are mostly men.' Or is it saying that the 'Male Wikipedia contributors are more likely to nominate women's articles for deletion than men's articles, whilst female contributors are not, and Wikipedia contributors are mostly men'? Or something else? LastDodo (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Some additional sources

Some sources for those who would like to review and add; will probably come back when I have time, but any help would be nice.

Also just a note to self to check whether these links are the most up to date (I think the last one isn't). Haven't checked if these are already included or not. Urve (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Urve: Glad to see you intend to improve the article. Another good place to find relevant information is Gender gap on Meta, especially the section on Research. I've added a tag under further reading. On Women in Red, you will also find links to pertinent articles under Press and Research.--Ipigott (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Oh! Wonderful, thank you. I had no idea this existed. Will be really helpful. Urve (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I was told that the article is not sexist towards men, and that most male editors are not part of this gender bias problem. Do any of the sources, including these new ones, make it clear that the majority of male editors at Wikipedia are not part of this gender bias problem at Wikipedia? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers why don't you read them and find out? Smirkybec (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have been, and have even quoted from some of them, but this was stuffed into a collapsed box and was branded "unproductive". So far the sources promote the idea that gender bias is the cause of the gender gap. All I am asking is whether anyone knows if there is at least one source that makes it clear that the greater majority of male editors at Wikipedia are not part of this gender bias problem that is somehow preventing women from creating articles about women. If we can make this more clear, either way, the article would be greatly improved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Re your attitude that it is necessary to find sources explicitly saying that "the majority of male editors are not part of this problem", see NotAllMen, and particularly the line "The phrase has been reappropriated by feminists and turned into a meme meant to parody its pervasiveness and bad faith." —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Stating the obvious is unnecessary; we can assume that our readers are competent enough to know that if the article does not say "most men are part of the problem" that it's not true. But yes. "But it is important to note that the Wikipedia bias is not intentional in itself but is an unintended consequence of its radical inclusion" from Kristiani - they say it's about policies. If you want a source that explicitly says most men aren't problematic, write it yourself and get it published. Urve (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Additional source: Minguillón, Julià; Meneses, Julio; Aibar, Eduard; Ferran-Ferrer, Núria; Fàbregues, Sergi (23 February 2021). "Exploring the gender gap in the Spanish Wikipedia: Differences in engagement and editing practices". PLOS ONE. 16 (2). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0246702.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link). This makes me start to wonder about article scope -- should it be about Wikipedia as a whole when most sources (that I have access to at least) are about English WP? I think it should be about the entire project but our reliance on en-WP examples makes me wonder. Food for thought for a future discussion at least. Urve (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Eppstein, please get control of the personal attacks and your attitude that seems to assume I am attempting to promote an untruth. I was just asking if there was a source that makes things more clear as to the magnitude and extent of this gender bias among male editors here at Wikipedia. Apparently you have no interest in making this idea clear for our readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • What personal attacks? I described the typical behavior of sea lions. If you don't want to be thought of as a sea lion, you might try not spouting sea lion clichés all over the discussion. A hint: "I was just asking" is another one of those clichés. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urve, The article does not make it "obvious" that most male editors at Wikipedia are not the problem. As pointed out several times, the article speaks in general tones, relies heavily on a ratio, as do the sources, simply refers to "gender bias" and then carries on about this big gap in the ratio of articles about men and women. Your advice that I go out and write my own source, as if that would actually fly around here, seems to indicate that you're simply trying to blow off inconvenient questions in your apparent attempt to avoid the issue entirely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Other editors here are trying to base the article on what has been published in reliable sources. If you don't have any sources to offer, and instead continue to argue that the article should be based on your own opinion of what the sources should have said instead of what they actually do say, then it appears unlikely that your contributions to the discussion will be productive. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not an opinion that the article, including the lede, doesn't clarify the magnitude or extent of this alleged gender bias among male editors here at Wikipedia, which is assumed by the sources, i.e. journalists, academics and "studies" which set out to find what they've assumed from the start, mostly, to have prevented women editors from creating articles about women. This is why I was inquiring as to what the sources may have said in that regard, especially since I was told by an editor who disagreed with my overall position, that the gender issue didn't involve most male editors. The idea of an unfriendly Talk page environment is not at all confined to the idea that it has targeted only women, as is glaringly evident on this Talk page and throughout Wikipedia. Yet men overall are not discouraged nearly in the same capacity that women are, according to this article. This more than suggests that women can't cope, which I don't believe is true – but this is what our so called reliable sources are saying when they claim women are discouraged from editing at Wikipedia primarily because of unfriendly Talk page episodes. The attempt to just brush all this off in the manner you've demonstrated, with no viable discussion about the the extent of this gender bias, with no desire to further look into the sources on that note, seems to have revealed its own bias. The fact that the threads involving quotes from the article and the sources have been quickly removed from this Talk page more than confirms this idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Urve — The other day, on the 20th, you claimed that, "I sincerely doubt that anyone here believes "most of the male editors" are responsible for anything, ... The behavior of a few men are being criticized in above sections for, eg, misgendering an editor - that is not a normative claim about most men." I'm hoping that your view here is based on the sources so we can include this important perspective in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I thought you said before that you were going to bow out from this article and talk page? You're being increasingly disruptive to general conversation and actual article improvement, not to mention POV-pushing of your own personal opinions on the subject matter and your complaints about the dozens of sources that make statements you personally don't agree with. This is seriously approaching an AN/I thread intervention point. SilverserenC 22:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Perhaps it is incessant badgering like this that makes women uncomfortable contributing to Wikipedia. Uninterested in entertaining your disruption. Urve (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, I've said I was going to bow out, but Urve brought up a claim that needed to be addressed. I've not resorted to personal attacks, smug remarks and am only asking fair questions about the sources. Now I'm being accused of being "disruptive" and for "badgering"?? It is only being asked, sources permitting, that Urve's claim be represented in the article, again, for the sake of clarity and article improvement. If you don't want to entertain that idea no one is forcing you. I'll respond further if some one wants to continue with the idea, if not, indeed there's no point for me to continue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reference

Came upon this resource in my research:

  • Reagle JM, Koerner JL. Wikipedia @ 20 : Stories of an Incomplete Revolution . The MIT Press; 2020.

"We argue that press coverage of Wikipedia can be roughly divided into four periods. We have named each period after a major theme: “Authorial Anarchy” (2001–2004/2005); “Wikiality” (2005–2008); “Bias” (2011–2017); and “Good Cop” (2018–present). We note upfront that these categories are not rigid and that themes and trends from one period can and often do carry over into others. But the overall progression reveals how the dynamic relationship between Wikipedia and the press has changed since its inception and might provide further insight into how the press and Wikipedia will ccontinue to interact with each other in the internet’s knowledge ecosystem(Reagle and Koerner 2020)."

What's important to note her is that there IS a problem, but measures have been done to address it. Not taking sides but I also acknowledge that the era of "Bias" cannot be rigidly contained within 2011-2017. There will always bias in everything, the point is if we are making a conscious effort to rectify it.Caudaequinas (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The book is entirely open access and available here. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Chapter 21: Wikipedia Has a Bias Problem by Jackie Koerner. Terjen (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This article should not be associated with 'discrimination'

This article cites male-female differences as "discrimination"! This is absurd. Given that society has always been patriarchal (and many societies arouond the world still are, and always will be patriarchal, such as Muslim, Jewish, and Christian societies), there are obviously going to be more articles about notable men throughout history than women. That is clearly not "discrimination" of any kind.

As for the gender difference of Wikipedia editors, how can that possibly be considered "discrimination" when editors freely take it upon themselves to sign up to Wikipedia and contribute? To believe that the male bias is "discriminatory", one would have to believe that men and women have identical brains and are equally likely to want to undertake every type of endeavor, a notion which not only goes against common sense, but is scientifically invalid, and would be introducing pseudo-scientific political agendas to Wikipedia. Grand Dizzy (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't characterize it as "discrimination". I presume you're just talking about the presence of the discrimination sidebar? If so, I tend to agree that it should be removed, if for no other reason than this article isn't linked from it (and thus isn't part of that series). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Finally someone with common sense on wikipedia 131.150.125.128 (talk) 00:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of gender bias on wikipedia...

Look at the bottom of this page that lists the sections this article is in. That's quite a lot of sections with the words "women" and "feminism" in them.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia&oldid=1054772750"