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.
 
WikiProject Sociology (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Discrimination (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Discrimination, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Discrimination 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 quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
 
WikiProject Women's History (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles 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.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article has been mentioned by a media organization:


prep to update article - 2015 sources & citations[edit]

peer reviewed[edit]

  • 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[edit]

  • 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.

from Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias/Gender gap task force/Media and research[edit]

extended source list

Forthcoming[edit]

2015[edit]

October–December[edit]

Art+Feminism edit-a-thon, the Oracle Club, Queens, New York, June 2015

September–July[edit]

June–April[edit]

Wikipedia women's meeting in Palafrugell, Spain, March 2015

March–January[edit]

Art+Feminism edit-a-thon, Madrid, March 2015

Discussion[edit]

I've added a "do not archive until" template to this section since it looks like it's still useful to improve the article. That template can be removed by anyone if I'm wrong, of course. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Women in disguise[edit]

Has anyone considered that many females can pretend to be male? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stankot (talkcontribs) 08:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What a load of...[edit]

Especially those nine reasons given by Sue Gardner. So, nobody considered the obvious, real reason of the gender disparity? Has political correctness really taken such a hold over free speech that we can't even face, or formulate the truth anymore? That women in general just don't care. They'll use the wiki but just won't contribute. We all know where women are found on the internet, let's not fool ourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.174.108.198 (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Note: This comment is clearly trolling, especially the last sentence, but I'm not going to edit war over it. The editor claimed on my talk page that "[t]he point [he's] making is totally absent in the article," yet § Reaction explicitly mentions it. I encourage anyone to remove this and the preceding section under TPO's allowance for removing disruptive and off-topic discussions.  Rebbing  18:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
You have a right to consider that my style is too harsh and direct, but in no way shape or form is it trolling. Besides, having 3 lines out of an entire article hardly makes it unbiased, which was my point in the first place. 88.174.108.198 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
Please keep in mind that wikipedia talk pages are not a soapbox. If you have specific suggestions how to improve article, you are welcome. Please keep in mind that article improvements must be based on information published in reputable sources. Please provide ones which argue that women dont edit wikipedia because they dont care. Simply venting your frustration is useless. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I presume the comment about trolling comes from the combination of belligerence and lack of meaningful/actionable content. Steering away from the "trolling" label, I'll just say the problem is that you're using the talk page to complain about the subject of the article by way of your own opinion. The only things that go in the article are what appear in reliable sources. Here are ways to effect change using the talk page: dispute sources used that you identify as unreliable (according to these criteria), argue that the sources cited are reliable but not accurately represented, or cite other reliable sources to back up a different, even contrary perspective. In short, it's not "directness", it's that this page isn't about gender bias on Wikipedia; it's a civil collaborative space to talk about how to improve the article according to the subject's coverage in reliable sources. These are all ideals, to be sure, and it's not always so clean cut, but that's why your comments were removed. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I assumed trolling based on the hostility, the complaint about "political correctness," and what I took—incorrectly—to be a wink-and-nod insinuation that women on the Internet are found in porn ("We all know where women are found on the internet, let's not fool ourselves."), not doing serious things like writing encyclopedias. The editor discussed it further on my talk page, and I can see my assumption about his intent was mistaken. I apologize, and I wish him the best.  Rebbing  01:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe "gender bias" is not the best term[edit]

This is a complex subject and many people have strong opinions. Maybe it would help if we thought more about the terms that are being used.

If there is gender "bias", that should mean that the source is actively antagonistic to women. If people of one gender voluntarily do not participate as much in an activity, then there is less representation of that gender in the activity than in the broad population. For example, if there are fewer men teaching kindergarten than women teaching kindergarten, this is not "bias" against men but voluntary less representation by men.

As we discuss "gender bias" on Wikipedia, I am upset if people demean women on Wikipedia. That is wrong on several levels. At the simplest level, it is not civil and kind. But that strikes be as quite different than the statement that fewer women voluntarily choose to edit on Wikipedia.

I could not resist a chuckle when I read that the first listed reason that fewer women edit here is that the interface is difficult, "A lack of user-friendliness in the editing interface." There are probably men out there who say women as a class are less capable of working in STEM, but it almost seems like this quotation is saying that editing Wikipedia is harder for women than for men. I strongly doubt that this is what Sue Gardner would say she meant. (This guy strongly agrees that the user interface is difficult. But it is equally difficult for all, regardless of gender.)

Another sub-topic that comes up in the discussion of gender-bias is that there are fewer articles about women than men. Not sure what the statistics are on this, but it would be fascinating to see a breakdown by century. For example, in the 18th century there were fewer women than men who were rabbis, generals, composers, poets, inventors; society having been what it was, it is inevitable that there will be many more articles about men than women from the past. I would expect a higher proportion of articles about women for recent decades. The sub-topic of proportion of articles about women and men is qualitatively different than the discussion about the factors that discourage women from editing in larger numbers. And it is the easiest to change.

I trust that this tiny essay will help us all think more clearly about what can be improved in and around Wikipedia. If we can sort out the issues a bit more clearly, it should help us all improve this messy process and resource called "Wikipedia". I am trying to be not merely civil, but constructive and friendly. I hope that those who disagree with me, even if they disagree vehemently, will understand my efforts as having been made in an irenic spirit. Pete unseth (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

What about Gender disparity in Wikipedia? Some do use this term. I agree the term "bias" bears many negative connotations: prejudice, unfairness, etc. (Of course some go even further and speak of Sexism in Wikipedia...:-( ] AFAIU, "disparity" is a rather neutral term about pronounced inequality. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
On the other hand, it looks like "gender bias" is an established term for what's going on in various areas, regardless "ill will". Therefore we must find out which term is most common in reliable sources and stick to it (WP:COMMONNAME). Staszek Lem (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
re "user-friendliness" et al. - these are the actual complaints provided by actual women and summarized by Sue, without any actual research/ statistics. I will edit the piece accordingly, to decrease the gist of authority. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
Rather than go through it again, I'll just point to Talk:Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia/Archive_1#Requested_move_6_January_2015, though I'm happy to clarify. Took me a bit to find that, since someone created an untitled discussion section including the cluebot code, so cluebot archived the archiving code, then archived the archive... :) Fixed now. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
A good catch, but it was a "no consensus" case. Let's see if new arguments crop up. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Indeed. Fair enough. I'll just speak for myself that my opinion hasn't changed. :) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)