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 LeoRomero (talk | contribs) at 18:45, 23 December 2015 (→prep to update article - 2015 sources & citations: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest Data on Gender of Wikipedia Editors

Do we have any data for the gender of editors that is more recent than 2011? A lot might have changed in 4 years. In any case, this is something we need to measure so that we can see what's working to close the gender gap and what isn't. What's the latest dataset we can reference? Thanks!-wʃʃʍ- 01:53, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the majority of editors being male necessarily lead to systemic bias?

To prove that having a majority of male editors leads to systemic bias, this column is cited. That column does not constitute research or a reliable source. Noam Cohen is a columnist expressing an opinion, not a researcher. The opinion that having a majority of male editors leads to systemic bias is not backed with research in the link being cited. If it is true that having a majority of male editors does in fact lead to systemic bias, then research is needed to show this, not mere opinion.

As far as I can tell, research shows that a majority of contributors are in fact male, but research has not been done on whether this leads to systemic bias or not. The personal opinions of a feminist columnist are here being cited as fact. --BenMcLean (talk) 16:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The column cited does not appear to be an opinion piece, nor is material in the lede the product of just one source- generally it's a summary of the main article. As such, we don't need to attribute it as stringently as that unless it is not widely held or easily verifiable. We don't write 'according to John Smith, the sky is blue' etc. PeterTheFourth (talk) 04:30, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Arkon, that's the second time you've inserted attribution into the lede statement. Would you please explain on the talk page why you believe this is necessary, and contribute to the discussion? PeterTheFourth (talk) 00:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The column cited does not appear to be an opinion piece

If it does not appear to be an opinion piece, then what the hell does it appear to be? It's certainly not news, and not research, what does that leave?

nor is material in the lede the product of just one source

The one source that's actually cited there is neither authoritative nor reliable. If the argument is a product of the other sources, then those other sources should be cited, not this one, cause this one's no good. (because it's just opinion) --BenMcLean (talk) 04:35, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's investigative journalism, defined by google (the One True Source) as "Investigative journalism is a form of journalism in which reporters deeply investigate a single topic of interest[...]" PeterTheFourth (talk) 05:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What was the investigation in this case!? How would investigative journalism reveal systemic bias? Isn't all investigative journalism anecdotal evidence when what would be needed to show systemic bias would be statistical evidence? --BenMcLean (talk) 20:37, 7 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am wondering whether anybody perused the column in question. It does speak of gender bias, but does not speak of systemic bias a all. So I removed this footnote from the intro. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:01, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic - How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women

Suggested source.

Added to Further reading sect for now. — Cirt (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Eric's an admin? Arkon (talk) 18:36, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
no. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:17, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Source for what? Precisely what new information is in this source which is missing from our article? Staszek Lem (talk) 19:20, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I re-read the article twice. Conslusion: "copy-paste journalism", i.e., rehashing old newz. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hardly copy-paste journalism -- which you're unlikely to find in one of the world’s leading magazines. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here is cite from WP:EL for your convenience:

Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy.

Some external links are welcome (see What can normally be linked, below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a lengthy or comprehensive list of external links related to each topic.

So, once again please explain what additional info is in this source and why this info cannot be added into article body, with regular footnoting. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@SlimVirgin: Staszek Lem (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Atlantic piece mentions specific issues relating to within-Wikipedia gender pressures which the current WP article doesn't, apart from a rather generic mention of "A toxic culture and tolerance of violent and abusive language are also reasons put forth for the gendergap". 'Eric' does indeed appear to have posted the remark attributed to him in The Atlantic, which was probably unwise in a discussion of (in)civility regardless of how ironically or otherwise he intended it to be taken. As for the claim that The Atlantic article is a 'cut-and-paste' job, I’d be surprised not to find more egregious examples much less vigorously policed on other WP pages, so I’m not sure why this one was removed so quickly! And if The Atlantic piece contains inaccuracies, then take it up with the publisher – this is a 'Further reading' item, not WP page content in its own right! JezGrove (talk) 22:35, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Gender anonymity - texts need rewriting

Have you wondered how many of our users actually allow their gender to be publicly known? I think this question should be analyzed and answered before how many of us are male or female, and the article should give more emphasis to that question. It doesn't state anywhere that the surveys refer only to people who spontaneously decide to identify as male or female. - - Alumnum (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Some people also mis-gender themselves on purpose. AFAIU, females do it more often than males (judging from their claim that they do it to avoid bias). "Passive" surveys cannot help you here, only polls. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Alumnum: Please keep in mind that the lede of a wikipedia article is a summary of the article. Therefore any new information must be added in the article body and then summarized in the lede, if necessary. (BTW when doing this you usually don't need to put footnotes into the lede; the latter makes it look ugly.) Doing otherwise may lead to self-controversies. This is what happened with your recent edit: your lede addition " ranging from 6% to 22.7%" does not match with "approximately 8.5 and 16 percent" in the article text. Please harmonize. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I also rephrased your edit, because the phrase "a small minority of Wikipedia editors are female, which contributes to the systemic bias in Wikipedia" implies that females are producing the bias :-) See "garden path sentence" Staszek Lem (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
<sigh> I removed your numbers from lede altogether, since they are misleading: please read about 22.7% in the article body. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Staszek Lem: To summarize was exactly what I did in my lede edition. The article presented various percentages from different surveys but it didn't indicated a whole range - that's what my edit added. Yes, I agree that many footnotes damage the text aesthetics, but I think that, in this case, these footnotes are needed to fully support the said statement. But perhaps it would be really better to remove them, as they are already in the article body.
As to the second issue, you may note that the "8.6 - 16%" refers to two or three specific surveys, while the "6 - 22.7%", as I said before, is a greater approach concerning all mentioned surveys, what in my opinion fits good as a summary. - - Alumnum (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There is the problem with showing "the whole range" - if you are not careful, you will be comparing apples and oranges, and the "whole range" becomes meaningless. In particular, the number 22.7% I mentioned is for adult US females, while the article implies the whole wikipedia. I have no idea without reading sources what other surveys did. Another problem is that surveys were carried out at different times. Therefore the best idea is to remove any numbers from lede altogether, otherwise lots of exlanation are necessary. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

prep to update article - 2015 sources & citations

peer reviewed

  • Klein, Max, and Piotr Konieczn. "Wikipedia in the World of Global Gender Inequality Indices." Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Open Collaboration - OpenSym '15 (2015): n. pag. Web. <http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2789849&preflayout=flat>. While Wikipedia's editor gender gap is important but difficult to measure, its biographical gender gap can more readily be measured. We correlate a Wikipedia-derived gender inequality indicator (WIGI), with four widespread gender inequality indices in use today (GDI, GEI, GGGI, and SIGI). Analysing their methodologies and correlations to Wikipedia, we find evidence that Wikipedia's bias in biographical coverage is related to the gender bias in positions of social power.

mass media

  • Many hands make Wikipedia work. (2015, December 10). Sydney Morning Herald [Sydney, Australia], p. 20. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA436910759&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=sfpl_main&it=r&p=STND&sw=w&asid=ec97e622b712616c8a2c1ff0dc58b220 We all use Wikipedia. It's hard to avoid. On just about any Google search, Wiki tops the list. Because it's also astoundingly comprehensive, intelligible and reliable, it has become the ubiquitous go-to start point. Yet almost the first research rule our kids learn is Wiki-denial. Read it if you must but, never, honey, never ever admit to it. ... So yes, Wikipedia is flawed. Above all, it needs more female input. But the obvious response, for you-and-me users who encounter something stupid or biased or just plain wrong, is to hop in there and fix it. I'll see you there, yes? Oh, and honey? Cite away!
  • Wikipedia: A bias against women? (2014, Apr 13). The National Retrieved from http://ezproxy.sfpl.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1515588882?accountid=35117 Prof Bruckner's hope is that having systemic data on the extent and reasons behind bias could mobilise resources to deal with the issue. It might help, she suggests, if universities encouraged staff to become Wikipedia contributors, ensuring important academic work does not get ignored. They could, for example, expand the programmes some of them already run for academics on writing newspaper editorial columns - another area where female writers tend to be heavily outnumbered - to cover Wikipedia contributions. "That is not something we usually do. We're scientists, we're not in the business of marketing our research. We have no training to do this," said Prof Bruckner. She admits she has never contributed to Wikipedia herself. The apparent bias could also be partly redressed by focusing on general initiatives to improve Wikipedia's quality. For Prof Bruckner, the Wikipedia project may also offer pointers about how the value of academic work in general is assessed. "There is the gender issue, but also how people think about scholarship and what's reputable scholarship or not," she said.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia&oldid=696518044"