This week's Time magazine shed more light on the fact that women make up only 13 percent of Wikipedia contributors. Sue Gardener, Wikimedia Foundation's E.D. noted:
The average Wikipedian is a young man in a wealthy country who is probably a graduate student -- somebody who's smart, literate, engaged in the world of ideas, thinking, learning and writing all the time.
It should go without saying that if women make up 51 percent of the population, 13 percent representation at Wikipedia is a DISGRACE!
The graduate student reference also surprised me. It seems odd that women are drastically underrepresented at Wikipedia when women in graduate school outnumber men. This means that there is more to the story, possibly more issues -- cough, sexism -- which Wikipedia must investigate to figure out what gives when it comes to their lack of women contributors.
Our own commentators have testified to sketchy posts on violence against women and the overall frustration with the "Wikipedia Gods." Wikipedia is increasingly becoming the go-to source for everyday information, and women of all status -- and men for that matter -- should have a space there. Wikipedia should step up to ensure that.
In the Time article, it seemed that affirmative action was the unspoken answer to the gender gap. I, for one, don't think affirmative action is perfect. But where woman are concerned, it has had significantly positive outcomes in various sectors. And the wheel doesn't have to be reinvented. The Wikipedia rep in this article came off as unapologetic and without a concrete plan for diversifying, even in the face of stunted growth.
But let's be clear: along with the gender gap being a significant issue, it can't be overemphasized that contributing to Wikipedia is also an issue of access, and I'm not only talking about a computer and an Internet connection. The Wiki legalese that can be a decisive barrier to getting a post up. Even with my policy background, to call the dispute resolution page overwhelming is an understatement. When I think of the demands of graduate school, plus the unique challenges that I face as a woman of color, becoming fluent in Wiki-speak so that I can post something up at Wikipedia is low on the priority list.
For many, however, the issue with cracking Wiki legalese probably isn't just time, it's literacy. I spent a great part of my summer creating sexual health handouts for parents and youth in a community-based organization in San Francisco. To account for the literacy disparities among parents, the organizational standard for readability of sexual health handouts -- for both parents and youth -- was set to the 5th grade reading level. While I realize that literacy is not as simple as grade-level equivalents, Wikipedia could do more to make their content for contributors and viewers more accessible.
Shame on Wikipedia for not even attempting to address these issues.
Related Posts
Quick Hit: Only 13% of Wikipedia Contributors Are Women
More on ACOAs and Wikipedia
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Wikipedia's Gender Gap.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/16194
I would venture to say that the people who edit wikipedia also have at least some proficiency in programming.
And if you've been on any college campus recently, it's clear that the disparity between male and female computer science majors is HUGE.
I'm a female, I edit wikipedia, and even though I'm not a CS major, I do know how to program in a few languages.
THE PROBLEM IS NOT WITH WIKIPEDIA. The problem is with the sexism in our schools and institutions that don't do enough to emphasize that HEY, women can be programmers too!
While accessibility might be an issue for you and other users, it is unrelated to the issue of sexism.
I agree with this post 100%. The wiki format is growing as a way to exchange information, but it still has a large technical barrier to entry. Most of the people who meet this threshold have extensive computer backgrounds... we need to get on the rampant sexism in university physical science programs.
I found very little sexism in engineering at university. I know it exists in colleges because it exists in society. However, I really believe that there are so few women in physical sciences because girls are told at a young age that they can't do math, and that they are just bad at science. So when many girls never have the confidence to really try hard at those subjects, they don't pursue those degrees.
This is still sexism, but it exists during a females entire life and not just during college.
So really, the disparity in composition of wikipedia editors and women in science fields is a symptom of a much bigger problem.
I agree with femgineer here. Despite the 'leaky pipe' that exists for women in science and engineering disciplines, I'm convinced the more influential problems are related to pre-university socialisation.
The university I went to had about 60% female enrolment in biology, 50% in chemistry and 15% in physics. I divided my time fairly equally between chem and physics and I'd say that apart from problems that deride purely from a number differential to begin with, there was no other substantial difference in sexism between those disciplines.
Of course number pressure is a problem in itself, i.e. if everybody like me is doing X why wouldn't I do X too. The fact that those keen on science are already going against the grain indicates the affect that gender schema's are still having. The cumulative pressure of that word here or there results in the disparity in numbers between the different disciplines and that has these follow on effects like the wikipedia gender divide.
It's not that hard to take a CS course as an elective.
I took a 3 credit hour elective CS course and walked out proficient in VBA and SQL.
To Ninjasareawsome and JamesXL. You are both 100% Correct. It is not Wikipedia's fault that only 13% of the contributors to it are female. Contributing to Wikipedia is COMPLETELY VOLUNTARY. No one is being chosen or excluded to create Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not inherently sexist or enlightened. It is however inherently egalitarian, in so far as regarding those with access to it. ANYONE at ANYTIME can create Wikipedia articles. Women are simply choosing to refrain from creating or editing Wikipedia articles. Female graduate students quite clearly have better things to do with their time frankly. Wikipedia is not a trusted or valid academic source I should point out. It is not accepted in citations of research papers. Perhaps the issue is also in that most people (men and women) don't know the programming language used. If they are a graduate student, that is their own choice, as they have had ample time and access to learn. I myself do not know much about programing languages. That is a choice I've made. I have however once or twice done small editings of text based material on Wikipedia. I also don't think that women are being excluded from university computer science programs. Most computer science majors I know would be more than delighted to have a few more women in their classes. I think actually the problem may be as much a stigma with computers and the people, especially men, that use them. Computer programming has long been thought of as the domain of fat, hairy, sweaty, baby faced men with poor social skills. As a result, others I think have shied away from that. This is changing, however, I think that you are still more likely to find, at least in America, a man as a computer programming major. Despite this, I have a multitude of female friends involved in the computer sciences. Many are computer graphics, design, or animation majors. However, there are still plenty involved in computer engineering, computer science, or computer programming. This may be a symptom of growing up not only in North Carolina, world's hotbed for all things technical, (sorry California, your time ended with the booms and busts of the 90's) but also with in RDU, RTP and the infamous "Golden" Research Triangle. But I have many friends involved in computers. My own Aunt, a mid-aged Chinese immigrant, works for one of the top programming firms in the world, SAS (Statistical Analysis Systems). In short, the only thing keeping women from posting on Wikipedia, or being more involved with the technical aspects of computers, is women choosing other paths. Suggesting that more women out to choose computer programming, that women ought to be there, is applying the same sort of sexism that is the bane of men, to women. Neither men nor women ought to be restricted or coerced, or led to any path other than one of their choosing. The fact of the matter, is that men and women are often interested in different things. While computers as whole ought not to be one of them in our world, no one could argue that there is a shortage of women using computers, especially when I suspect you'll find that women dominate such fields as Computer design, computer animation, and the digital arts. This is perhaps indicative of the same sort of sexism as mentioned before, for what real man, who must be the breadwinner for his family, has time to mess about mucking with drawing, art, or anything creative (tongue in cheek rhetorical statement alert). The fact of the matter that social upbringing and perhaps other biological factors mean that men and women are both led from and led to various options as far as careers, hobbies, and interests. But lamenting the fact that only 13% of women mess about editing Wikipedia is analogous to lamenting the fact that only 13% of women watch the NFL or NASCAR everyweek. It is a person's choice to turn on the television and watch cars go around a circular and enclosed track for 8 hours straight, and no one should say that they ought to be doing it rather than watching (albeit the infinently more interesting) act of 22 players throw around a silly ellipsoidal piece of leather on fake grass.
"Female graduate students quite clearly have better things to do with their time frankly. Wikipedia is not a trusted or valid academic source I should point out. It is not accepted in citations of research papers."
YES!!!
No, Wikipedia isn't an academic source. I would never dream of citing it in a paper.
BUT, it is influential in other ways. I want women to be a part of Wikipedia because it's making a huge cultural impact. Maybe mostly graduate students are editing Wikipedia but they sure aren't the only ones reading it.
As far as the time thing goes, yeah it requires a huge time commitment. But who are we to decide whether or not it's a valid use of time?
Exactly. For non-academic purposes I check wikipedia all the time now. If I want to know the symptoms to a disease, the thumbnail history of an event, an actor's resume, or almost anything else... I check Wikipedia. And if the voice of Wikipedia is exclusively male there is a problem.
I feel like part of the gap has to do with women sidelining themselves. This is my experience of myself, at any rate. I haven't grown into trusting that my voice is important enough, or that I have the necessary authority to contribute. That, and the process of editing Wikipedia is not transparent. There is just enough of a barrier from within and without that I don't jump in. It frustrates me, and I think I'll make it a goal to get over it.
I would never cite wikipedia in a paper, but I do use it constantly to look up definitions and statements of theorems and examples in math. I wouldn't trust it if it said something that didn't seem to make sense, but so far I've never found a serious mathematical error-- those articles are really good. And they're not about a controversial topic, so no one goes and messes with them. They cite good sources that I can track down when I need something more in depth or serious to cite. I haven't edited any of those articles because they are already good enough that I don't have anything to add, but when the day comes that I have something worth adding, maybe I will. Or maybe I'll be too busy to bother-- grad school takes a lot out of you.
"I also don't think that women are being excluded from university computer science programs."
I hate to be rude, but just because you don't think it's happening doesn't mean it isn't.
"Most computer science majors I know would be more than delighted to have a few more women in their classes."
Some of my classmates (and teachers) have shown their "delight" in really unfortunate ways. In the past 3 years I've endured the following:
I think actually the problem may be as much a stigma with computers and the people, especially men, that use them. Computer programming has long been thought of as the domain of fat, hairy, sweaty, baby faced men with poor social skills. As a result, others I think have shied away from that. This is changing, however, I think that you are still more likely to find, at least in America, a man as a computer programming major."
Do you notice how you've just said that men have to deal with the stereotype that programmers are unattractive and have poor social skills, and that women have to deal with the stereotype that programmers are unattractive, have poor social skills, and aren't women? That's an important point there.
I'm by no means a computer science major, nor have I ever taken a computer science class, but if someone wants to edit wikipedia it isn't that hard to learn... young girls are teaching themselves HTML and CSS on sites like neopets (and I know, I was one). All you need to do is look at how other entries are coded and mimic it.
I think once my generation of girls and young women, those of us born in the early 90s, come to maturity & get graduate degrees of their own, things will change. We're the self-taught technophiles.
Exactly, I taught myself HTML/CSS and PHP to make my animal website when I was in HS, learned how to modify the Sims and IMVU objects.
It's a generational thing.
I agree; it's not hard at all to teach yourself the required "programming skills" necessary for Wikipedia editing.
Perhaps women are simply uninterested in editing Wikipedia. Perhaps the study was faulty. Perhaps...it doesn't matter. Why are we trying to force women into things they don't want to do? Wikipedia is entirely voluntary, and if more men are editing it...so what?
Also, ask yourself this: If the numbers were reversed (with only 13% of men editing wikipedia), would you be advocating to close the gender gap...or would you be celebrating that women are so overrepresented in the Wiki-sphere?
The 'so what' would be that it's symptomatic of the wider sexism. There is no evidence to suggest that women are inherently uninterested in programming, yet they are under-represented in areas that require it. The propagation of gender schemas has an additive effect. People are still being lead into behaviours by the feedback society gives them, i.e. we don't have the same opportunities.
Now, ways we can work to correct that. a) being aware of the problem. b) leading by example, working to correct the gender imbalance where we see it, since this has an affect on the way society views men and women – those gender schemas become less prevalent.
Just because some women can do it doesn't mean that all women can.
I'm a bit older, but I taught myself HTML when I was in middle school and early high school because I was into anime and wanted to make a "fansite". Geeky, I know.
It's become a really useful tool though and I have used my skills for college classes and for my jobs. But, because I am a bit older I taught myself before CSS became the preferred designers language and have not had the time in late high school or college to learn it. Now that I am out of school, and have a bit more time, I would like to take a shot at it again. In fact, if anyone knows of some good CSS tutorials...
The problem there would be that sexist parents, educators, and the entire computing industry seem to think that programming a computer is a boy's thing to do. Obviously, girls are only using them to chat, shop, and look up recipes, right? (A recent Dell Netbook ad targeting women seemed to think so.)
I think the reason more female graduate students aren't contributing to Wikipedia is that they're busy working harder for their graduate degrees than their male counterparts, doing more of the professor's or the department's busy work, and consequently having less time on their hands to do stuff like edit Wikipedia.
Myself, I'm an Open Science Grid programmer in Physics, and I've edited Wikipedia's elementary particle physics articles a couple of times. ;)
Some thoughts:
1) Ninjasareawesome raises some good points about sexism in computer programming. Wikipedia needs an interface facelift rather badly, so it can be more user friendly. Of course, the people who can make that happen are also the ones most use to its quirks, so good luck with that.
2) Disputes over editing and protocol on wikipedia almost frequently turn into a highly contentious adversarial argument. Remind me: Which gender is taught to shy away from conflict and not make a fuss?
3) How was that 13% data collected? I don't see how it's possible to obtain a number with any accuracy. Is it just people who self-identify? Might the real number be quite a bit higher, but women identify as men or don't identify at all to avoid 'flirting' and other harassment? Many woman I know who visits male-dominated websites has adopted a male persona at some point for precisely that reason.
To clarify, we had an enormous survey done of Wikipedia users across languages (readers and editors) about a year and a half ago. Something like 200,000 people responded. I remember taking it and it was pretty much standard "Who are you and how do you use Wikipedia" type questions. That's how the data was collected.
And I didn't really address your question anyway. Oops.
The survey was anonymous, so even those Wikipedians who don't identify themselves as women publicly could reveal that information. I, for example, do not disclose my gender on Wikipedia, in order to cut down on gender based vandalism on my personal page. I wouldn't doubt that a lot of women adopt male personas on Wikipedia, either explicitly by identifying themselves on their userpages as male or simply by not disclosing their genders.
I think Wikipedia is hostile and so I avoid editing unless I see something that I feel absolutely needs to be changed. But there are a lot of other sites I avoid commenting on for the exact same reason. Hell, I've even boycotted Feministing for weeks on end because I find a handful regular commenters to be hostile and petty (no offense meant to the many excellent commenters here). Sometimes I get my feelings hurt on the internet. Yeah, I know it's dumb but it's the truth and I don't have the emotional energy to contribute to Wikipedia.
I think Wikipedia editing is probably a reflection of larger trends in contributing content online. The twist is that the users on Wikipedia are highly educated and get off on being the most correct (I don't think there's anything wrong with being well-educated or correct but there's a way to be both without also being an asshole). It's basically a pissing contest with big words. So all I can surmise (and this is based entirely on my own observations) is that Wikipedia is the internet equivalent to sexism in academia.
"It's basically a pissing contest with big words. So all I can surmise (and this is based entirely on my own observations) is that Wikipedia is the internet equivalent to sexism in academia."
Since when did pissing contests equate to sexism?
Yeah, that was unclear.
I meant to say that "if there is sexism on Wikipedia, it is the internet equivalent to sexism in academia." And I meant for that statement to substantiate what others had said about the different pressures men and women face in graduate school. I don't know if those pressures necessarily translate to the internet but it would be interesting to figure out why if they did.
I'm having a hard time fully forming an opinion on this. I don't feel like I know enough to make an argument either way.
When accessibility is a problem, there's the Simple English wikipedia - I just had a poke around on it and it seems like the editing guidelines have been simplified too, not just the articles themselves.
I'm put off by the amount of coding involved. I have only a basic knowledge of HTML. The coding was enough to put me off from editing things.
Also, I don't really care all that much.
If you're too impatient to read and understand the rules on the dispute resolution page, then I don't really have much sympathy for you tbqh. Wikipedia is a big and complex enterprise; why do you expect to be able to just jump right in and have things your way?
Well, I can see part of the problem right here in your comment - which really reflect the elitism of far too many Wikipedia users.
I prefer the "elitism" of Wikipedia to the egalitarianism of, say YouTube any day.
There's a place for both. YouTube is entertainment and everyone is welcome to join in, if it's crappy work hopefully it won't get recommended. Wikipedia is meant to be a knowledge database, and calls for a specific kind of elite: knowledgeable, factual and capable of writing clearly and concisely.
This would be like people wanting to launch the space shuttle but not wanting to learn that pesky physics. If I coule "like" your comment a thousand times, I would.
I think if women are "winning" graduate degrees 59-41 then losing out by not choosing to edit Wikipedia is a pretty insubstantial "loss" at any margin.
When I was in grad school (in Engineering), my experience with my peers was that men grad students typically had waaaaay more time on their hands than the women grad students. In my department, most of the women grad students were either (a) married/co-habiting, in which case, they were doing most of the housework (b) working very hard to finish up asap and get the hell out of grad school, and quite often it was both (a) and (b).
Now I am not trying to generalize here, and it is possible that in some places, women grad students do have a lot of leisure time to write articles on wikipedia. But it is also possible that this is pretty low on people's lists of priorities, and this is more true for women than men, and other things about the society needs to change so that women can be equal contributors.
IDK what you are describing could be the result of women shooting themselves in the head. These are the type of issues that feminism should be addressing.
*WHY* are so many women graduate students choosing to get married or playing house when they have not finished their schooling?
Are women really more in a bigger rush to finish school sooner than their male counterparts, all other things being equal? If so why.
From what I have seen, quite a bit of it is women trying to be all things to all people, that's *their* fault, not society.
There is a prejudice against women starting families before they are in a tenure-track job, or perhaps have tenure. It's thought that children will distract or detract from academic work. Since grad school in the humanities is so long, and it can take a long time to get tenure, some women rush to get through it all in time to still have children.
I've also heard of other women who try to have their kids while writing the dissertation because they think it will be easier then, when they are concentrating on just research and writing, than when they try to enter a teaching job.
Academia is in some ways very unfriendly to women. The powers that be don't care so much about what's going on in the men's personal lives.
Hey now, as a woman graduate student who is "playing house," as you so nicely put it...
Why should I have to choose between academics and relationships? Why should I wait to live with my partner until after I'm done with my schooling? Nobody criticizes a male graduate student for being "distracted" from his studies because he's living with his partner.
Playing house? Graduate students are adults, so "playing house" we are not; most traditional grad students are in their mid to late 20s. This is the time when most of their peers are finding partners, co-habitating, getting married, etc. Why shouldn't graduate students do the same? Those of us in Ph. D programs will spend between 5 and 8 years on average in graduate school, meaning that traditional students will be nearing 30 by the time they finish. You expect women to put off co-habitating or marriage for that long, even if they've met someone they care for? The problem that kkcc4105 points out is a problem with traditional gender roles in heterosexual relationships, not necessarily a problem with women co-habitating while in grad school.
Graduate school is essentially a job. I am an employee of my university (as a TA), and combining the work I do on my courses and the paid work I do for the university means that I put in about 40 hours of work a week, if not more. I can't imagine that you would also tell women to put off co-habitating or marriage until after they finished their careers.
Alex, ova begin degrading between ages of 26-30, and there is a higher risk of difficulties bearing children after that age. I've heard that for men, the degredation of viable sperm begins between ages 35-40.
There can be a greater difficulty conceiving, possibilities for birth defects, or a higher risk of miscarriage after such ages. People who want to have children often reasonably want to do it when the risks are relatively low, yet the task also generally involves courting a partner and grooming a relationship to child-raising commitment-levels for several years, so time is of the essence.
It's true that much older people can have children, and many do so very successfully. The physical risks are simply higher.
So, it shouldn't be surprising that it's a natural and healthy choice that many people begin to take their relationships more seriously at or before that point in their lives, graduate students or not.
Oh man, how dare I fall in love before I finished graduate school?! And how dare I marry him because I needed health insurance and to not be paying outrageously-high out-of-state tuition when we moved to his home state? What WAS I thinking, when I should have been busy editing Wikipedia?!
Er how did they come up with the statistics? I have a different Wiki accounts for each subject area, as it can be a contentious place and I don't want enemies from entry A to follow me to totally unrelated entry B. All of my wiki pseudonyms are gender neutral, as it's the content, not the commentator, that matters...what demographic grouping they belong to is irrelevant.
Of course most people who contribute have graduate degrees, they are the subject area experts. I would hope those writing the articles are more knowledgeable about that subject than I am or what's the point.
As for software proficiency, meh that is this generation of women's fault. We should follow the DIY ethic of the generations that have come before us.
The statistics were from a WP survey, I believe.
By the way, I'm glad to hear that most contributors have graduate degrees, but there has been a rising trend of hostility towards experts on WP.
Have you ever been called an "SPA" or single purpose account? I think it's good for people to focus on topics they are knowledgeable in, but on WP your edits can get thrown out just for being an SPA.
*puts on Wikipedia hat*
This is incorrect. While the community is often very hostile to SPAs, being a SPA on its own is not grounds for banning. It would be difficult to argue that it is, since many of our best content contributors deal only with a very specialized group of articles within their areas of expertise, like the guy who writes articles about streams in Pennsylvania and nothing else. (Amazing stuff, by the way.) The behavior often associated with SPAs that is grounds for banning include "revert warring" (repeatedly undoing the edits of other editors to one's preferred version), "POV pushing" (blatantly promoting a point of view), and personal attacks, which generally take the form of accusing other editors of malicious behavior. There seem only to be a few forms of behavior that new users tend to fall into and the SPA role is one of those. Experienced users have seen it before and are wary/annoyed with reason when dealing with a situation that will probably turn ugly fast.
*takes off hat*
Nepenthe, sometimes I feel like I need some sort of unofficial guide to be able to navigate the ins and outs of editing on Wikipedia. You need to write that guide. That is all.
Nepenthe. I've made that same argument myself. The response was along the lines of:
"Quit wikilawyering, if you don't stop beating the dead horse you will be banned."
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I say abuses of power. There are policies like WP:SPA that explicitly say they aren't sufficient to block an edit, but admins use them anyway, and they get away with it.
I actually signed up for an account here just to comment on this article. I also went and looked at that Time magazine article, where they mentioned that the community is looking for ways to attract a wider class of participants, shame!
I see cries of sexism here, but I don't see the gender barriers that are keeping women off of Wikipedia. All I see is, "contributing to Wikipedia is hard". I feel that the idea that Wikipedia is too unfriendly and environment or too hard for women is disrespectful to the women who are participating already. I've dabbled with it a little bit. Wikipedia is a tough community. In some ways it has to be. Their editors are likely scrubbing off posts all the time that are contributed by businesses and special interests trying to push their world view on others. I, as a dude, was out of my depth in that community. Could I have joined their ranks, yes if I cared enough.
Here's the kind of person who I think is going to be the most likely to be super-involved in Wikipedia: people who get a perverse pleasure in being right about something. In my experience I think that may be more likely to be a male trait, and kind of an obnoxious one too. While those kind of people can be obnoxious to work with, I'll bet that they're very useful at what they do. When some company creates a glowing entry about itself, it's good to know that some smug geek is going to delete it as commercial interest within three minutes of its posting.
I'd like Wikipedia to be more accessible, but if there are less women than men who love nothing more than "being right on the internet", I wouldn't want to force more women to contribute to Wikipedia.
I just felt that there was some misplaced anger against a group that isn't set up to exclude people and is composed largely of unpaid volunteers. That seems unfair.
Before you get flamed by the other readers here, your post brings up an important distinction that I'd like to comment on.
A lot of the comments above are in the vein of "Wikipedia is hard", from a technical and policy standpoint, and I agree with the above posters who pointed out that any barrier-to-entry that represents to women is more representative of a societal problem than one with WP...
However, and this is a big however, it is also true that "Wikipedia is hard" from a political standpoint. Specifically, there is a small group of about 1000 people on WP who have a lot of power, and many of them are in the habit of abusing that power. Add the fact that the vast majority of these editors are males, and you have an environment where women are at a disadvantage. And the editors that abuse their power and stand by while others abuse their power are most certainly to blame.
Thanks for the flame retardant. I must first say that I'm not hugely familiar with the Wikipedia process. I am familiar with editors flippantly wiping out entries. I could see some system of flagging entry deletions as "abuse of power" being a good way to combat that.
I would like to see some evidence though where a person's gender is the reason that they were disadvantaged. I'm willing to interpret some there too. I just don't believe that a bunch of male grad students immediately band together against women. Is there some sort of gender loyalty that I'm supposed to be following that nobody told me about?
I just want to see more than "there are more women than men, so the women must be at a disadvantage." I would think that something more concrete would be needed before one cries foul.
Ah, it looks like you (and Lila in another comment) slightly misunderstood me. I'm not claiming that there are a bunch of guys hatching evil schemes to keep women from editing Wikipedia.
What I'm saying is that a disturbingly large number of the editors at the top of the WP food-chain use their power to silence points of view that conflict with their own. Because most of them happen to be men from a narrow demographic, points of view from outside that demographic, such as those of women, are more likely to be silenced.
And Lila, I'm not saying that women can't compete in a man's world. I'm saying that it's too easy and too common for admins to abuse their power, and that they use this to silence opposing viewpoints, and that those opposing viewpoints are more likely to come from women, for the simple reason that women are more likely to have had different life experiences in a society that treats the genders as differently as ours.
I'd like to see where you got your facts regarding the predominantly male 1000-strong group that have a lot of power and abuse it to silence women.
Also, you first state that "Specifically, there is a small group of about 1000 people on WP who have a lot of power, and many of them are in the habit of abusing that power. Add the fact that the vast majority of these editors are males, and you have an environment where women are at a disadvantage."
You then state that "I'm not claiming that there are a bunch of guys hatching evil schemes to keep women from editing Wikipedia."
Let's break down statement #1.
A. There is a small powerful group on wikipedia that abuses their power.
B. That group is predominantly male.
C. Therefore, females are at a disadvantage.
These premises suggest the conclusion that there is a large group of males on wikipedia that abuse their power, putting females at a disadvantage. This implies that females are the target of said abuse of power. The final conclusion would be that women are the target of power abuse by a large and powerful group of males on wikipedia.
Let's break down statement #2.
A. There exists no group of males that plan to abuse their power on women on Wikipedia.
This premise suggests the conclusion that women are not the target of power abuse by a large and powerful group of males on wikipedia.
So which is it?
Words mean things, FGJ.
These premises suggest the conclusion that there is a large group of males on wikipedia that abuse their power, putting females at a disadvantage. This implies that females are the target of said abuse of power.
Your first point does not, in fact, imply your second point. FGJ was quite clear in pointing out that any silencing on the part of Wikipedia editors is likely to be the result of a skewed demographic viewpoint rather than an intentional attempt to target women.
Words mean things, FGJ.
Also, your snide tone is doing you no favors here.
"Your first point does not, in fact, imply your second point. FGJ was quite clear in pointing out that any silencing on the part of Wikipedia editors is likely to be the result of a skewed demographic viewpoint rather than an intentional attempt to target women."
A skewed demographic viewpoint causing the silencing of a specific group implies that the specific group is the target of said skewed demographic viewpoint.
You know, like how person A, someone with violent tendencies, beating person B over the head with a tire iron implies that person B was the target of person A's violent tendencies.
"any silencing on the part of Wikipedia editors is likely to be the result of a skewed demographic viewpoint" in laymans goes a little something like this:
People(Women) are being silenced by editors on Wikipedia because they are predominantly men.
In what way does that not suggest that men are targetting women on wikipedia when abusing their power (silencing)?
"People(Women) are being silenced by editors on Wikipedia because they are predominantly men."
I meant to say "People(Women) are being silenced by editors on Wikipedia because they(The Editors) are predominantly men."
Again, the fact that the end result = women being silenced does not mean that women are being specifically targeted. What FGJ is saying is that if Wikipedia is largely controlled by a particular demographic that adheres to a particular set of beliefs and attitudes, that demographic is likely to have a silencing effect on non-members - not because they are deliberately targeting non-members, but because non-members are probably espousing a viewpoint that runs counter to that of the primary demographic.
If, for example, the predominant group of Wikipedia editors was liberal, you might expect to see a subtle (or not so subtle) bias against conservatives creeping into the articles. This wouldn't necessarily happen because the primary editors were deliberately choosing to silence conservatives, but rather because their underlying assumptions and biases were coloring the decisions they make regarding edits, reversions and deletions.
Does that clarify?
Yes.
My apologies to FGJ as well.
Had a bad day and I pounced as soon as I saw what I thought to be promotion of the male/female binary.
No hard feelings?
Not on my end. =)
Misunderstanding on my part.
Wow, I appreciate you admitting it. Thank you.
Words do mean things. I'd suggest you look up the definition of "target" and re-read my post (if you read it at all the first time).
Misunderstanding on my part.
I see what you're trying to get at now. I initially thought you were trying to imply something else.
My bad.
Their editors are likely scrubbing off posts all the time that are contributed by businesses and special interests trying to push their world view on others.
Dear god is this ever true. In my mind, and in the minds of a lot of other editors who, like me, deal in contentious topics, dealing with people who push extreme viewpoints without being disruptive is the most challenging issue currently facing Wikipedia. It's one thing to complain about how little coverage feminism has; it's another to appreciate how much of a battle it took to keep theories of universal and inevitable patriarchy (ala Steven Goldberg) from dominating every discussion of feminism on Wikipedia.
I think that the requirement to "Assume Good Faith" is the underlying problem. I really do. Historically, any under-represented group who has "assumed good faith" has wound up marginalized and ignored, or dead.
The fact that men like to be "right about something" and are more likely to be blowhards, though, has a lot to do with sexism. I'm a woman who has always been active in debate-team sort of activities in high school and college, and who is very assertive about her opinions. Men are allowed to be opinionated; if they're particularly virulent, it's seen as annoying, but overall, valid. Women who are overly opinionated are dismissed as emotional or PMSing, OR they're ball-busters who are threatening to men.
I think the problems work both ways. The fact that men are encouraged to air strong opinions can be bad in that, I knew a lot of boys in high school who never learned how to be respectful or figure out which situations might be more appropriate for them to jump on a soapbox and which might not be. But girls are discouraged from speaking up at all, and told that their opinions don't matter compared to those of their male classmates. So, in an environment where opinionated people rule the roost, chances are very few of them are going to be women, since so much of that is socialized out of us. I've tried to resist it but I've had to pay a price for it (let's just say I have trouble finding a boyfriend).
I can't tell how many Internet communities I've left because I was sick of being told, every time I made a legitimate, well-supported argument, and refused to back down from rebutting if I had good points to make, that I was being "too sensitive" or I needed to "calm down," whereas similar rants by men were always treated as evidence of intelligence or seriousness. Wikipedia isn't quite as bad as those, but has a bit of that there, among certain users who often have too much power. That said, I don't exactly advertise on my Wikipedia page that I'm female, and I have a gender-neutral username, so perhaps I just haven't seen the worst of it.
LadyBeethoven,
I am very much distracted and led off topic by your pointing out that you're smart, assertive, and single. That's hot. I'd hit on you, but I'm already in a relationship with someone who's hot for similar reasons. Anyone who's threatened by you, well I'll just chalk that up to insufficient machismo. What kind of nancy is intimidated by a woman as an intellectual equal? What happened to good old fashioned manly men who don't live their lives as slaves to their gender role insecurities, and seek out woman who will challenge them and keep them from growing bored? Clearly we need a return to traditional* masculine values.
In essence, you only have to sacrifice what you don't need. There are men who will value you for who you are. You just might have to accept that you're not a mainstream commodity and might have to try some more discerning markets. Thank you for not giving up on being who you are. The world needs more strong women.
*Sex Toy James's definition of traditional may deviate from societal norms and may directly clash with conservatives' wussy views on tradition and male roles.
It's really a mistake to speak of "Wikipedia" as a monolithic group.
I could be considered one of those 1000 people FGJ mentions and I could talk about Wikipedia for a few hours on end. The best way, I think, for me to address this post is to make a community post, because I don't want to take up all of your space here.
I would really appreciate a community post.
Ditto. I want to see how the proverbial sausage is made as someone who dabbles in wiki purely as a grammar editor.
And heck yes, Wikipedia is tough to do. It requires a lot of skills and a specific time commitment. The result, though, is something pretty incredible.
Thirded.
What you said.
Fourthed sounds a little awkward.
I recommend FGJ's community post as a how-to guide. As to how the sausage is made, it's really too big of a topic for me without a starting point. There's a lot of politics going on behind the scenes; I wouldn't know where to begin.
I also had to make an account to comment on this. I just think it's going a bit overboard to insist on Wikipedia making itself "women-friendly." It's on the Internet, it's a "free encyclopedia" available to anybody, they're dictators of themselves... who's fault is it if a great percentage of women don't know enough programming to edit Wikipedia? It's certainly not Wikipedia's fault... I think the whole concept is a great idea, and as someone said above, if the community's harsh then it's probably because they have to be.
Also, "Specifically, there is a small group of about 1000 people on WP who have a lot of power, and many of them are in the habit of abusing that power. Add the fact that the vast majority of these editors are males, and you have an environment where women are at a disadvantage." Wait, am I the only one seeing something wrong here? Check me if I'm reading this as "us women can't handle competing in a man's world... " Since when is being in an environment full of men suddenly a disadvantage? Are all of these men going to do nothing but work against the women just because she's female? I don't think so...
Please see my response to Sex Toy James above.
I shouldn't worry about it girls, the 13% contributed by women is probably the 13% of Wikipedia's 'facts' that are accurate anyway.
That kind of attitude really helps your cause. No, seriously- cool story, bro.
Not.
I wonder how many people like JamesXL come here just to troll.
They're always under the guise of male usernames...
James was being trolled, not trolling. Unless you consider 'men are always wrong' to be a fact.
Well, given your comment about male usernames, that might be true.
Thanks. :)
Some people just need to have it pounded into their heads that :
Feminism = Anti-Misogyny
Masculism = Anti-Misandry
and NOT
Feminism = Misandry/Anti-Masculism
Masculism = Misogyny/Anti-Feminism
I think the sad truth is that people think respect and equality is a zero sum game. Men have to 'lose' in order for women, for example, to 'gain.' IMO, that mentality turns some peoples feminism / masculism into 'us against them' rather than equality.
It's a fallacy anyway. Men have as much to gain from feminism as women.
You're the troll.
My apologies, I read the post wrong.
I read "Don't worry, the 13% of women posting are correct."
Let me explain myself. I was a frequent Wikipedia editor, and left the site because I dealt with the hostility that absolutely fills that site. I'm a bit bitter towards some of the "editors" on there, and Wikipedia itself, so I read the post above as a shot at Wikipedia and agreed with it. I didn't catch the part that it was anti-male, which now that I read, it is, and I'm definitely one to argue with some of the "feminists" that put down men and hurt our cause.
I apologize to James, it's just usually when I read "Cool story bro" it's always a troll or some sarcastic asshat, though that isn't the case here. My comment about it being under the guise of a male username is that the trolls on this site usually have male usernames just so they can get a reaction out of feminists, despite possibly not even being male themselves but fishing for reactions, but that also probably came off as sexist.
No hard feelings, I hope, for my lack of reading and jumping to conclusions.
It is for that reason that some men choose gender neutral user names to post here. Which is a little ironic given that many women choose gender neutral user names to post at a lot of other places on the net for similar reasons.
I guess the upshot is that those men that choose male user names get a small taste of a form of sexism, which can be educational. The downsides, of course is that well meaning voices are silenced, and the opinions of the 'community' aren't as diverse nor inclusive. Not to mention that feminist men get ticked off for having well meaning posters jump down there throat all the time. Similar things can be said about the rest of the internet.
Really, this whole thing is fascinating. Given the ability we all have to take an alias online, the potential to explore stereotypes from a different perspective is immense.
Serious? How in the world is this trolling? Qtiger was pretty much spot on above; trolling is the posting of deliberately inflammatory comments designed to disrupt a forum.
I've had to repeatedly edit pages about programmes (i.e. the Wire) who seem to frame rape as "she slept with him". I've also gone through and put in "is a feminist"(reference) for a number of prominent men (like Larry David) and had it removed.
Wikipedia gives me the feminist shits.
It can interesting how larger phenomena (women avoiding computer related expertise) can effect certain smaller phenomena (women being absent from wikipedia).
I've never actually edited wikipedia, as I've never encountered something where I've felt myself to be the superior expert.
I have to wonder if a woman is likely to feel the same way?
It would certainly have a big effect on wikipedia.
I also have to agree with the idea, that a homogeneous dominant group will end up excluding other groups by consistently denying other opinions. You don't need to have a secretive conspiracy within the dominant group for it to oppress other groups, whether in wikipedia editors, or larger society.
I also have to agree with the idea, that a homogeneous dominant group will end up excluding other groups by consistently denying other opinions. You don't need to have a secretive conspiracy within the dominant group for it to oppress other groups, whether in wikipedia editors, or larger society.
I would go so far as to say that this exclusion will always happen unless the dominant group makes a purposeful effort to be inclusive.
Also, it should be noted that I suspect most of the postings that put slants against women, feminism, ect., are done by individuals with little respect for accuracy or information. Rather, they are smug young men who fancy themselves greatly amusing by putting down female oriented view points, and not so called experts or well known contributors or editors with any sort of power.
I think Wikipedia's problem is not specfically gender-based, although gender is an element. More broadly, the problem that it faces is that it has developed a very beginner-unfriendly culture, in which the barriers to getting started are high (or are perceived as high by people outside the communities). This is not uncommon in open-source communities, and it tends to disproportionately affect women, people of colour, and other 'minority' groups, who already face other challenges. This is not to say that prejudice isn't an issue - it's just that the big step-up compounds it. If I already feel that there's a steep learning curve involved in taking part, and then additionally I find that the community is not welcoming to women (for example, if there's a culture of comments which characterise women as less competent than men*), then the two things combined almost guarantee I'll walk away. If I only have to deal with one (big learning curve or sexism) I'm more likely to persevere. White, educated men are more likely to only have to face the big learning curve, so they come out better.
Why should Wikipedia care? Well, because if they could make it easier for people outside the existing community to get involved (regardless of gender) they'd have more contributors. Kirrily Roberts gave a great talk on the gender imbalance in Open Source programming at Oscon this year where she addressed some of these issues - she gives a summary of her talk in this blog post.
* I've never been involved in Wikipedia other than a reader, so I don't know if / how any prejudices manifest, but this is a more general example.
I'm by no means a computer science major, nor have I ever taken a computer science class, but if someone wants to edit wikipedia it isn't that hard to learn... young girls are teaching themselves HTML and CSS on sites like neopets (and I know, I was one). All you need to do is look at how other entries are coded and mimic it.
I think once my generation of girls and young women, those of us born in the early 90s, come to maturity & get graduate degrees of their own, things will change. We're the self-taught technophiles.
sorry, this was meant to be a response to the first post...
We are talking about a huge gender gap, yes, but lets keep in mind we only have one female justice in the Supreme court. At least the Wikipedia doors are open to women and people of color. I think Wikipedia issue only highlights our larger gender gap when it comes to the education of women and people of color on a international level. Also the over work of women in our society who have very little time to write on websites like Wikipedia when right now women are under extreme pressure to work, work, work in all aspects of their lives.
There are two female supreme court justices. 22% > 13%
I have noticed a slight gender bias in some Wikipedia articles. Upon seeing that one of the founders of Nathan's Hot Dogs was a woman, I wanted to learn more, and wouldn't you know it, there was not one word about the woman in the Wikipedia article. Another time I learned there was an entry on white males. The entry made it sound like white male majorities in Congress/ legislatures were a thing of the past and that white males no longer have an advantage. I made edits on both occasions.
Hi,
I also just signed in for the specific purpose of commenting on this thread. In the interests of full disclosure, I'm a white male grad student who edits Wikipedia regularly. I don't know why such an unfortunately small percent of edits are made by women, but I can say that the conclusion that it is because Wikipedia is sexist or 'silencing women' or systematically limiting their influence is unfair:
1. The technical barriers to posting that have been mentioned don't exist. To edit an article, you click "Edit this Article" and there's the text of it in front of you, ready to be edited. When you're done, click "Save this Page." You only need some (VERY basic) coding knowledge to edit tables/give references/post equations etc. Editing text doesn't require coding knowledge at all, and that comprises probably 80% of (my) edits, and that would be much higher if I didn't edit equations a bunch. One full year of comp sci is WAY, WAY overkill for the type of knowledge needed to edit Wikipedia pages. If I need to code, I don't think back to a HTML course I took, I just copy someone else's code. When it's necessary this process takes a couple minutes.
2. The wiki-gods are indeed annoying. They make mistakes, and make jerks of themselves. It's always infuriating when someone on the internet, esp. some (likely) sweaty shut-in exercises power over your work. I've had like ~10 such experiences in the past 4 or so years of editing. But 95% of the time I would never know - I edit and move on.
3. Those of you editing controversial pages, be prepared to fight other people over your edits. Wikipedia is open for everyone, including assholes (like me?) who disagree with you.
4. The feminism-related topics, those admitting some kind of gender bias, or even those admitting any controversy at all are a tiny fraction of the total entries on Wikipedia! If you don't want to clash with people, then edit those pages - there are a couple million that require work. This is what I do!
Editing Wikipedia is voluntary, and absolutely simple, costing only your time. Even if you dislike fighting other editors or wiki-gods, the vast majority of pages are uncontroversial and wide open for you. People advocating "women-friendly" policies on Wikipedia should make their ideas about how to improve it explicit. How should policies change? Please don't just tar Wikipedia and move on.
What a co-inky-dink!
I've been researching Mary Wollstonecraft, and the difference in reception between her "A Vindication on the Right of Men" and Thomas Paines "Rights of Man".
I like wikipedia, it's a decent source of information if you are a critical thinker and know how to trace sources and check the talk pages, etc.
But, the Mary Wollstonecraft wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Wollstonecraft is an excellent example of the problem with wiki. And I think the two main editors are female.
The Wollstonecraft page focuses disproportionately on her romantic life. It divides her life into sections that are titled based on which man she was at the time. In all the pages on male philosophers and writers and reformers - I've never seen one of them have the sections of their life organized by sex partner.
The article is on semi protection, so not just anyone can edit it - ha certainly not a noob, no matter if they do have information about Wollstonecraft to add. Editors have continously reverted additions and have told contributers that their contributions are not wanted. Yes, I am considering jumping in. Got's me a username. It won't be pretty. Not when you look at the user pages of the editors who are "in charge" of the page. What chance is there that I will be taken seriously, and not considered merely a troublemaker when I protest the way the page has developed under the control of a MANY starred editor? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Awadewit
And Candoo, I'm not sure I'm reading your last point correctly:
"4. The feminism-related topics, those admitting some kind of gender bias, or even those admitting any controversy at all are a tiny fraction of the total entries on Wikipedia! If you don't want to clash with people, then edit those pages - there are a couple million that require work. This is what I do!"
Was there a "don't" missing, when you say "if you don't want to clash with people then edit those pages" - do you mean "don't" edit those pages? But if you do mean that we should find non-controversial pages to edit instead of the ones that pertain to our areas of interest? I read a lot of the talk pages, on all different sorts of topics, and most new users seem to start contributing when they find info that needs correcting in a topic they are familiar with, why should it be different with women wanting to add to the topic of feminism or gender issues or LGBT issues?
And here are a few of the pages I encountered just last night:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mary_Wollstonecraft - Wollstonecraft's talk page - with 5 archives along the side
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Alastair_Haines - very active editing on feminist/gender issues pages and repeatedly banned (never permanently)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Daniel_Quinlan/gaming - bad user tells how to be a bad user - not banned - was active in creating the page "Feminazi" - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Feminazi&diff=next&oldid=277465 go on, click the little "next edit" button - all the way up to current.
Yeah, guess I'm not done complaining yet.
Wikipedia coddles sexists and racists and haters of all kinds. Sexists and racists and haters are unreasonable. Wikipedia coddles the unreasonable.
Why should it be up to us to bust in and point out what's wrong. You can see it, admins on wiki can certainly see it. They see who causes problems, who is there to derail and misinform and slant the articles - and yet the haters are tolerated. And rewarded. Yes, the racist may get a complaint lodged for messing with certain pages, but then the racist gets a star for knowing racist history! YAY!
One of the problems that Wikipedia will necessarily encounter when it comes to female subjects is our policy of reflecting existing sources. Awadewit is an academic who studies early feminists like Wollstonecraft, afaik. But she can't diverge from existing coverage. So the fact that most of the narratives about Wollstonecraft's life frame it in terms of the men she was with dictate how the article on Wikipedia must be written.
It all comes down to politically appointed admins. Wikipedia introduced politics at that point, and surprise! it reflects the way society tends to lean when power is granted and denied. Those obsessed with power and status gather at the top and defend each other, while those not giving a patooey about climbing the wikiladder are left in the cold, or just opt out of the insanity altogether. Meta-word policy statements are drafted and redrafted, and a culture of specialness evolves from there.
Thus, certain editorial POV's are given more credence simply because this cadre, who enjoy their own small-pond majority, subscribe to it. This also explains why far too many articles are ridiculously technical (see: Orange_(fruit)) and tend to stay that way.
The solution is to get rid of politically appointed admins. Snowballs in hell, I know. But there you have it.
What makes you say that Wikipedia is "not even attempting" to address these issues? The results of this survey have only been known for about six months.
Even given that, one of the 3 key topics being addressed in the strategic planning process ( http://strategy.wikimedia.org/ ) is Participation ( http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Participation ).
As a woman who is involved with the Wikimedia projects, the results are not surprising (and yes it gets me down from time to time), but equally, I don't think there's some obvious easy "next step" that we've turned our back on.
I went and checked out the links you gave, and honestly, I was disappointed. That the strategy stuff is over on a seperate wiki is an obstacle to participation in itself. And I pretty much got the feeling that nobody wants input from people who aren't already wiki-withit. There seems to be an attitude of there are "wiki readers" and wiki-doers", which is certainly true, but the strategy section on how how to get participation shouldn't be a place where that seperation is re-inforced.
Same with wikichix, you have to sign in/join up to even be able to read what sorts of wikichix complaints and concerns there are. I could understand requiring sign in for accessing the discussion pages, but when I have to join up just to read the "systemic gender bias" page, it's a needless obstacle. And I can't even sign up unless I send an email requesting permission, stating gender, and giving wiki user name - which, considering that there are LBGT folks who don't identify as female or who don't categorize themselves as female but are just as concerned about the gender issues on wiki, it's another obstacle. Certainly wikichix may let all genders sign-up, but to require a declaration of gender is going to make a lot of potentially helpful people feel unsure of how to proceed.
As someone who doesn't edit for a lot of the reasons cited upthread (largely not having the time to learn wikipolitics/editing syntax plus the hostile environment) I think the criticism in the OP is right on but so are some the proposed solutions. Some of the proposed changes are interesting, evidence-based, and potentially far-sweeping, actually. Radically changing social elements of wikipedia in the interest of attracting new participants and diversifying the editing population seems like it has potential. At least people are talking, and even concretely planning, ways to address this issue. Good job so far, Wikicommunity.
http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Participation/Attracting_new_participants#Barriers_to_engagement_for_non-contributors
Oh and... surprised to see no one mention this yet: http://www.wikichix.org/
Good grief!
You want more female Wikipedia contributors, I want more female Wikipedia contributors, Sue Gardner wants more female Wikipedia contributors. Even Jimmy Wales wants more female Wikipedia contributors.
I assure you, pointing people at the dispute resolution process is not the way to do it. This is necessarily complex, just like the real world's legal code. Editing Wikipedia does not involve a requirement that you know all the legal intricacies - just like driving a car does not mean you need to have studied all the legislation governing use of public highways.
This blog post strongly implies that before you can become a Wikipedia contributor you must first become what is known as a "Wikilawyer". That is wrong. I have never read the full details of the dispute resolution process, and I have had no problems contributing to Wikipedia. However, I prefer contributing to the sister project, Wikinews. On Wikipedia I'm up against the issue that most topics where I might be interested in contributing are already covered by far more knowledgeable subject experts than I.
As a countering example of where women are doing just fine on Wikipedia, I'll point you to this report on the creation of Wikipedia's 2,000th featured article. The team that actually did this were, Monica Freudenreich, Katy Konyk, and Elyse Economides.
I'm a male-identified cisgendered male who edits wikipedia every so often, but is not a "wikipedian." My edits often consist of trying to prevent violations of the neutral point of view policy and counter systematic bias. I sometimes get into arguments with other people who disagree with me on the talk pages, but I've never had to use the formal dispute resolution process or deal with any wikipedia "legalese" beyond the neutral point of view policy. Most disputes of this sort can be talked through.
I'm, not a techie by any means, and I've found that learning how to edit wikipedia does have a "learning curve," but editing is not as difficult as it once was. It once required looking up Wikipedia's modified html formatting conventions, but now most functions can now be handled by the formatting buttons at the top of the edit box.
I can't speak to how much involvement in Wikipedia's formal dispute resolution process, etc., is required if one wishes to become someone who edits Wikipedia frequently. But becoming an infrequent editor doesn't require anything like that. I wouldn't even have to know the NPOV policy if I were principally interested in adding substantive content and correcting factual errors. Enforcing NPOV and countering systematic bias are just my idiosyncratic interests.
My comment isn't in the context of the discussion above, but about the original article (too many comments to read I'm afraid). I think that the article gets to the heart of the problem with modern feminism. Now for a start, I will be absolutely honest, I will confess I'm guy (switch your bias detectors on now).
Feminism was about giving women freedom to choose the direction of their own lives. Too much of modern feminism seems to be desperately looking for sexism were none exists, and then getting outrage about it. 13% of wikipedia contributors are male, so what? If there was an attempt by the sites owners to ban female members, or a rule which prevented women from contributing; you would have a case. There isn't such a rule, it just that women choose not to contribute.
Men and women are different; this doesn't mean different abilities, but they definitely have different interests. If a hobby or an idea seems a bit balmy; then you will generally find that men are behind it. In the UK there is a segment on a show called I have I got news for you which take question from publications of obscure clubs, and societies. Things like the used tax disc collectors, vacuum cleaner enthusiasts or barb wire collectors (yes they really exist). The one thing all these organisations have in common is that they are domination by men. If you wish to start a campaign so that the barb wire collectors of Britain better reflect the wider population demographics of the UK; be my guest. The point I'm trying to make is you can give women the freedom to pursue different career paths or interests; but you can't make them. A world in which some professions are not split 51/49 is not a sexist world.
So if you care about wikipedia, then get involved. You obviously have skills, you put this blog together.
Okay, I'm hoping some of the other commenters will jump in to help me explain why this is a feminist issue. I'm sure I'm going to miss at least a few good points.
First, women are just as capable of having geeky hobbies as men are. And they do, in large numbers. I build speakers in my spare time. That's a traditional "guy" thing. I don't know who these "vacuum cleaner enthusiasts" you speak of are but whatever. My point is that just because they aren't visible to you doesn't mean that there aren't female barbed wire collectors.
The hobby example doesn't really translate to the Wikipedia argument for this reason:
The OP stated that the average Wikipedia editor was a male graduate student. So what we're seeing is that there's a discrepancy between the percentage of women in graduate programs and the percentage actually using the expertise they have in their field to edit in Wikipedia. In other words, they already have the specialized knowledge/interests but they aren't contributing it to Wikipedia.
This is a problem because it is likely a reflection of a larger problem (as many commenters have noted; you would know this if you'd taken the time to read all the comments). Many of the commenters in this thread have spent a significant amount of time editing Wikipedia (because we care) and a few of them gave some insight into the sexism they felt they faced during their experiences. Again, you would know this if you had at very least, skimmed the comments.
To answer your question about whether or not we'd care if only 13% of the editors were men, I personally think that's an irrelevant hypothetical question. We would be living in a different world if that were the case. Sexism on the internet runs true and deep and I'm not the least bit shocked that it has probably spilled over to Wikipedia.
We care about this because it's obvious that Wikipedia is culturally important and women should have a chance to be a part of it. Yes, contributing is voluntary but as others have said, the political angle makes it a little more complicated than that. I think it's necessary to take a good look at how and why this is happening but I frankly find your dismissal of the issue a little offensive.
As to your question about male feminist writers, what do you mean exactly? Here on Feministing? There are more than a few and they are for the most part, valued contributors. On Wikipedia? I have no idea. I don't know how you would even begin to quantify that. In the world at large? Maybe not many who self-identify as feminists and write exclusively on feminism but there are still far more than you might expect.
"Modern feminism" as you term it is not a singular entity. Third-wave feminism is evolving all the time and yes, it means different things to different people. But you got it right when you said that feminism is largely about womens' choices. The issue is that many of us are still being presented with limited choices while constantly being told that it's all better now and feminism has already served its purpose.
Just because you don't see the ways in which womens' choices are being limited, doesn't mean it isn't happening. And you have no idea how often we hear that "we're just whining" or "creating problems".
That's all I've got for now. I resisted the urge to link to the 101 blog. I'm just gonna go ahead and give myself a pat on the back for that.
yes spot the deliberate mistake with the above (and I was so careful to proof read everything). The line saying "13% of wikipedia contributors are male, so what". Should read "13% of wikipedia contributors are female, so what". Though that does bring up an interesting point, if 87% of contributor were female, would feminists be celebrating that fact. Saying it showed how women were social animals who contributed to wider society, while men only provided knowledge for profit. Or would they be demanding that wikipedia got more male contributors. By the way, how many male feminists writers are there?
http://finallyfeminism101.wordpress.com/2007/03/13/faq-what-do-feminists-want/
I've contributed articles and adjustments to articles on Wikipedia. I am also female. I am not a programmer. I just read and follow the instructions. It's not that difficult.
Wikipedia enables everyone to write and change information on most of its articles. If you see something sexist or something patently false, you have the right to change the information or challenge it by emailing the company.
The fact that anybody can contribute to wikipedia suggests that women are less inclined to do so. Sure, we could say that sexism rejects women's additions at a disproportionate rate, but then again you do not have to reveal your sex when you edit wikipedia.
The answer is for women to simply think that this is within their realm of influence. You MUST edit wikipedia if it sounds wrong to you. You MUST learn the very basic HTML code required. You MUST take steps in order to make your voice heard. No one will do it for you, and on wikipedia there are truly no excuses.
Go edit something. It's easy.