Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia/Archive 2
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Gender bias on Wikipedia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Women in IT and women editors on Wikipedia
This passage, currently the second paragraph under the "Research findings" header, compares the percentage of women in IT work positions to the percentage of volunteer editors here at Wikipedia:
In comparison, according to Lydia Fishman of Fast Company, the national averages for female-to-male ratios in the IT industry are as follows: "The U.S. average is only 29% (female to male percentage in IT) according to the RJMetrics survey of the top 50 cities in tech as determined through Meetup data. That’s a bit higher than the 26% of women in computer or mathematical occupations that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported for 2013."[5]
The passage a little further down, under the heading "Causes" is more relevant:
A 2010 study revealed a Wikipedia female participation rate of 13 percent, observed to be close to the 15 percent overall female participation rate of other "public thought-leadership forums".[17][18] Wikipedia research fellow Sarah Stierch acknowledged that it is "fairly common" for Wikipedia contributors to remain gender-anonymous.[19]
It seems to me that the latter comparison is more relevant, and should replace the first quoted paragraph. Eddymason (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- PS: The source only says "Lydia Fishman, FastCompany, July 2014 issue" without any title. There doesn't seem to be a Lydia Fishman, but there is a Lydia Dishman, but without a title it's hard to know what the contributor who left that there was referring to. Regardless, the comparison of volunteer participation at a website with real life occupation doesn't seem relevant. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Eddymason (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the relevance of the first paragraph is not clear. I'm going to go ahead and remove it—but feel free to re-add the Time information if there's a good place for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- In the future please do not feel free to delete referenced information which is immediately relevant to the topic. As you may know, activity of wikiedians is in general lower than it used to be (may be here is not the case), so your deletion may go unnoticed at all. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- As to the issue itself: the relevance was pretty much clear, but the presence of this section is WP:SYNTH: in order to include this info we have to have a source that makes this comparison with wikipedia. Therefore I support the removal. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that the relevance of the first paragraph is not clear. I'm going to go ahead and remove it—but feel free to re-add the Time information if there's a good place for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Both comparisons are relevant if they (i.e. the comparisons, not just the figures) can be sourced reliably. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC).
- Comparisons of Finding1 and Finding2 may be relevant only if a reasonable care is taken that Finding1 and Finding2 were performed under comparable methodologies. This is Statistics 101. In the context of wikipedia this means at least that Finding1 and Finding2 are discussed in the same source. Otherwise even simply putting Finding1 and Finding2 side by side without any comment in a wikipedia article is a classical example of WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Idea lab proposal for recruiting women editors
I'm not sure this is the right place for this information, please forgive me if I've broken a guideline, consensus, community standards, civility or the other things that are not good...
Section "Category-Gate and Feminist Digital Humanities"
The recently added section "Category-Gate" is a standalone essay thrown in without connection to the rest of the article. As a result it significantly duplicates the already existing content. If it is a result of a feminist edit-athon, I applaud the effort, but at the same time I suggest to dismantle the section and seamlessly integrate it into existing article, with meaningful subsectioning. (The added text may give rise to a couple more sections). In addition the "angry feminist" voice must be toned down. The magical 10% is not a result of male conspiracy. Yes there are more males and yes, it results in a bias. But not because of malevolence one has to combat. Welcome, girls, join the ranks, write article about your role models, and be happy looking fem-wikipedia grow, without wrestling with men. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
By the way, "category gate" is an idiotism of sensationalist journalism, and it does not even start to adequately describe the issues of gender bias. (By the way, you did not describe the term) the category "female writers" was created with well-meaning purpose to single out, stress the existence of female writers, not to somehow put them down. The whole interpretation was ridiculous: listing a person as "female writer" does not mean she is not a "real" writer. Categories are created not becase of political correctness, but because people want to know something. In this case, nobody really cares that a writer is male. Hence there was no category. But feminists wanted to know that a writer is a female. Hence the category. And now suddenly wikipedia is guilty of discrimination by male chauvinst pigs who created a ghetto category for women. This fight looks to me not much better than "reverse-discrimination" of males because there are no diaper tables in men's restrooms. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)
- I agree that this section is not neutral, and contained unsourced claims such as "Because not enough women are on Wikipedia, women’s entries are either weakened or deemed unworthy by the ever-dominant male presence". Also I feel that the essay relies too much on the opinions of random named people who may not be notable. If they are notable, then I would like to see their Wiki pages linked to, otherwise their opinions shouldn't be used as evidence. My solution, because I would not feel comfortable editing the piece myself, would be to remove the section until it is rewritten to comply with Wikipedia standards. I'd rather seek some consensus on that before doing something like that, though. --Resip27 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)
Discussion about sexual harassment policy
Editors interested in this topic may also be interested in a discussion about whether Wikipedia should have a sexual harassment policy, located here. Input is welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 22:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- <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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
Just think
Has anyone considered that there are few women in Wikipedia, because there is no demand? There is no interest in the audience. From what I know, wikipedia allows a person, an educated parrot, edit its contents. Why the obsession with gender? 189.70.135.108 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Women in disguise
Has anyone considered that many females can pretend to be male? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stankot (talk • contribs) 08:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
What a load of...
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)
- 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)
Maybe "gender bias" is not the best term
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)
- 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)
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.
- Kalla, Joshua L., and Peter M. Aronow. "Editorial Bias in Crowd-Sourced Political Information." PLOS ONE PLoS ONE 10.9 (2015): n. pag. Web. <http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/ps/downloadDocument.do?actionCmd=DO_DOWNLOAD_DOCUMENT&inPS=true&prodId=AONE&userGroupName=sfpl_main&tabID=&documentTitle=Editorial%2BBias%2Bin%2BCrowd-Source&originalLanguage=&workId=8EGZ_pone.0136327-p.pdf%7C&docId=GALE%7CA427517563&callistoContentSet=PER&downloadFormat=PDF&contentSet=>. In this paper, we examine what kinds of biases exist in crowd-sourced information on Wikipedia. Because any user can also be an editor, no one person with any particular ideological or partisan motivation should be able to control Wikipedia. Yet scholars have recognized the tension that comes from distributed, crowd-sourced platforms like Wikipedia. On the one hand, crowd-sourced information platforms create opportunities for citizens to challenge media-driven narratives. On the other, these platforms may be captured by the self-interested who have the greatest motivation to shape them for their own benefit.
- Massa, Paolo, and Zelenkauskaite, Asta. "Gender Gap In Wikipedia Editing: A Cross-Language Comparison". In "Global Wikipedia: International and Cross-Cultural Issues in Online Collaboration" edited by Pnina Fichman and Noriko Hara, 2014. See <http://www.gnuband.org/papers/gender-gap-in-wikipedia-editing-a-cross-language-comparison/ > and < https://books.google.it/books?id=L0HcDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=%22Gender+Gap+In+Wikipedia+Editing:+%22&source=bl&ots=ZabDTMxXdI&sig=3dhB0RRCgu1qzGw3U3nnUG306U8&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmvNHcsvLVAhVLiRoKHY77A9AQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=%22Gender%20Gap%20In%20Wikipedia%20Editing%3A%20%22&f=false > This study compared gender across 289 language editions of Wikipedia. First, we analyzed the extent to which expressing gender is a diffused practice in various Wikipedias. We conclude that the differences in the amount of users expressing their gender can be explained by the differences in the interfaces, both the visibility of gender and the incentive to express it, especially during the process of the new user-profile creation.The second research question focused on the cross-Wikipedia evaluation of the gender gap. Overall results show that there is not a single sociotechnical system in which women constitute the majority, thus confirming that the gender gap is not just present in the English Wikipedia but it is diffused across all language editions of Wikipedia. However, there are notable differences: in some Wikipedias (Slovenian, Estonian, Lithuanian) the percentage of women is close to 40 percent, in others (Bengali, Hindi) it is around 4 percent, while on the English Wikipedia, the chosen baseline given its international nature reaches 17 percent. Notably, languages whose editions of Wikipedia have larger shares of women tend to be spoken in countries with a larger participation of women in science. In conclusion, we observe that, even if Wikipedia is an online system, it reflects the real-world societies that inhabit the different language versions of it, and across languages and countries there are differences in women participation in public life. In particular, given that the context of Wikipedia is about creating knowledge, the best explanatory factor is the participation of women in knowledge-creation activities: the gender gap in different language editions of Wikipedia reflects the gender gap in science across the different countries of the real world. Future research should conduct interviews with Wikipedians to identify benefits and drawbacks of visible gender settings as well as possible techniques that would encourage more diverse populations of these sociotechnical systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.77.82.234 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
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.
extended source list
|
|---|
Forthcoming
2015October–December
September–July
June–April
March–January
|
Discussion
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)
Rename
Gender bias carries the implication that Wikipedia is hostile towards women. Given the efforts being made, it seems doubtful that this is the case. Perhaps something along the lines of Gender disparity of Wikipedia editors. TheDracologist (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Requested move 22 October 2016
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Gender bias on Wikipedia → Gender imbalance of Wikipedia editorship – Gender bias implies hostile intent towards a gender. I believe Gender imbalance of Wikipedia editorship would be more reflective of the page's subject matter. TheDracologist (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose - This has been proposed a few times before. I don't feel like I have cause to change my opinion from the last time we had a formally proposed move here: Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia/Archive 1#Requested move 6 January 2015. Speaking to the wording of this proposal in particular, while many have argued that Wikipedia is hostile towards women, the term "bias" does not itself imply hostility. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 00:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose: this article is about gender bias, imbalance is only one element of a much larger systematic bias. The imbalance is a result of the bias. Indeed renaming this article to imbalance over bias is symptomatic of the gender bias which exists on Wikipedia through negation and marginalisation of critism. Ebonelm (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose: Current name describes what the article is actually about; proposed name does not MrStoofer (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
- 'Support" FOR different reasons. Gender bias is apparent in the editor base but this is no where near as important (IMO) as the bias on Wikipedia. Only 16% of biographies are about women. Some argue that these are related but this is not true. The bias of history was against wown before the WWW was invented. The title needs to be changed to allow another article about the work being done by the "Women in Red" project. Victuallers (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Fred (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Coverage on Today
This topic was covered on the Today programme on Radio Four during the week beginning December 5 2016 and could be updated with reference here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.1.129 (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
WP gender guidelines?
A question, slightly extraneous to the article, but certainly relevant: are there any guidelines about gender considerations & proper representation on [other] Wikipedia articles? e.g., present topics in a way that represents men and women equally (when men and women are equal components of the group/population in question). The question arises in connection with Haredi Judaism, where a few weeks ago I encountered a set of photographs exclusively of men. In discussions of the issue, another editor has claimed that "gender ... considerations do not have any basis in Wikipedia policy and guidelines"[1], and that it's okay to have mostly men in the photographs because "men are the public face of Haredi Judaism". I'd imagine that there are gender considerations in Wikipedia policy; the closest we get that I'm aware of is MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, "seek to depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities". Any suggestions for other places to look, especially re gender? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
- While not a bad question, as this is the article on the subject rather than a guideline, this should really go elsewhere (VPP/VPM/MOS/NPOV/whatnot). (fwiw it's not a bad question to ask) — Rhododendrites talk \\ 04:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Domestic violence in Russia
Can someone please update this article Domestic violence in Russia? I think the 2017 law passed but I'm not sure. Thanks.173.59.126.44 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
- I got it sorted.173.59.126.44 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
May be of interest?
Women at University Victuallers (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Gendered bias in favor of women
It's interesting to note that this article solely mentions the evidence that supports that Wikipedia's gender bias is exclusively in favor of men, and "against women". Clearly this has a lot of research behind it and I won't sit here and argue against the evidence presented in the article; however, the fact that this article presents only the evidence in favor of the perceived anti-female bias is definitely worth noting, in my opinion, as an example of those instances in which Wikipedia's gendered bias is in favor of women and "anti-male".
I am not sure whether academic research has been made about this, but off of the top of my head I can cite several articles in which the female voice and issues are given far more weight and importance than the male voice and issues. This, perhaps anecdotally, seems to be especially common in health-related and society-related topics in which women-centered feminist research is often the only research cited.
For example, compare the length and quality of the articles Femicide and Androcide. Or of the article Women's health and Men's health. And interestingly, the article Gender disparities in health addresses solely those disparities faced by women, and barely dedicates a measly paragraph to casually making note of the health disparities faced by men (despite the fact that, across most countries, age groups, and populations, men consistently fare worse in most health outcomes). And, of course, this article itself is an example of it.
Gender bias in Wikipedia is furthered by and affects both men and women. Though the available research seems to indicate that it disproportionately affects women in the negative (although, it is important to note that the research itself may be biased), this article fails to mention the sizeable pockets of Wikipedia in which the gender bias affects men negatively.
I would really appreciate some input on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:C200:D17F:38BD:C417:A365:37BF (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
- If you have reliable sources for the idea that Wikipedia is biased against men, we can consider mentioning it in the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
A cursory review of the available online sources indicates that virtually all of the literature on gender bias on Wikipedia focuses exclusively on that which excludes women and female voices. I would be tempted to say that this is an example of bias in the research itself, given that the majority of people who conduct research on issues such as "gender bias" (sociologists, gender issues researchers, etc...) in society or online do so explicitly or implicitly from a feminist perspective. This either purposefully or otherwise appears to lead to the exclusion of evidence in support of the idea that, at least in certain areas, men and male voices can be excluded in favor of women's. Perhaps because this "anti-male" bias is not regarded as "systemic" it is ignored by these researchers, but at least some mention of it should be made somewhere in the article.
That is the reason why I acknowledged the anecdotal evidence, and gave you examples of articles in which there is plenty of evidence of the female voice and issues being given a disproportionate amount of time, effort, and quality, and mentioned that there is likely a great bias in the "reliable sources" themselves. The article Gender disparities in health and the articles Men's health and Women's health are a particularly good example of this. You can probably find more examples, especially in healthcare-, feminist-, men's rights-, and sociology-related topics. Looking at who edited and contributed to these articles, I would venture to say that this disparity is caused largely by the great zeal and passion that feminists and women's activists have for addressing women's issues (which inspires many editors to contribute that viewpoint in articles) vis-a-vis the general apathy and disinterest that men's issues (especially when seen from a non-feminist or male-centered perspective) garner, both in general society and in academia.
I realize that these examples I am giving you would likely constitute "original research" and may not constitute "systemic bias" but, if gender bias on Wikipedia is something that we are really trying to address, I believe all voices should be heard and all issues addressed. All that being said, I simply do not have the free time, skills, nor resources available to look further into this topic, and only mention it to bring it to the attention of those Wikipedia editors that do, and are equitably disposed in addressing gender bias when it exists against both men and women.
Need a more careful nuance when using the word "bias"
The word "bias" seems to be used in two different ways in this article. Some will conflate the two, but I think they need to be differentiated.
There are indicators that there are more men than women that edit on Wikipedia. This statistical imbalance is called "bias" by some. Since editing Wikipedia is totally voluntary, any "bias" of this sort would seem to be the result of different personal choices by men and women themselves about whether to edit on Wikipedia. Some feel that more women should be encouraged to become involved in editing, though this can also be interpreted as insisting that more women should engage in the same activities as men (this is yet another possible form of bias).
The second form of "bias" referred to in the article is that (some) articles put men in a better light than women, including more articles about men and their activities. This may be partially influenced by having more editors who are men.
As we discuss possible types and results of bias based on the sex of the editors, I think it will be helpful to distinguish these two, separable types of bias. Men should not be ashamed of editing on Wikipedia (even if fewer women do it), but all should be careful to edit respectfully. Pete unseth (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
I concur. It is not a "bias", it is a sociological fact. (Women are shorter than men: is it "bias" too?) I found this article where MIT reserchers discovered that women are covered MORE in Wikipedias (all the lang eds studied) than in other sources. I added this finding to the art. Please check if this is so. If it was the case, then WP would be "biased" in favour of women, in fact. Zezen (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Pinging Pete unseth hereby: I have found this great quote which better expresses that bias ≠ gap than I have attempted here:
Many studies find “gaps,” and reach conclusions that gaps constitute evidence of bias, when, in fact, discrimination is only one of many likely explanations for gaps (see, e.g., my post on Simpson’s Paradox; or Ceci & Williams, 2011, review of sources of the gender gap in science). Some find correlates of gaps around which impressive narratives can be told, without even testing for the existence of discrimination.
Shall we remove this POV "bias" term here then if it is not supported by evidence? Zezen (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
- The researchers you've cited argue that a closer analysis demonstrates serious bias against women—the source even uses the word "bias". I've adjusted the article to reflect this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
The word "bias" in the title sets an interesting slant to the discussion
The claim that more men than women edit on Wikipedia could also be discussed under a variety of titles, including "Apathy of women toward Wikipedia", "Preference of women to use Facebook over Wikipedia", "Women biased against Wikipedia". Frankly, I am not proposing any of these as actual article titles, but I hope it does give a new way to view part of the topic.
The claim that editors perceived to be female are subjected to sexist messages is something I have not witnessed after editing 10 years. I am NOT saying it does not happen, only that I have not seen it. (I tend to edit more serious, academic subjects, so I spend more time on articles that attract thoughtful editors. I have encountered obnoxious editors, but never expressing it about gender.) If women editing on Wikipedia have withdrawn because they have encountered rude people, I suggest they continue editing, persevering to improve this wonderful enterprise called Wikipedia. Don't let rude people chase editors off. Pete unseth (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
- "Bias" is truly not a well-chosen word here. The title could be "Gender imbalance on Wikipedia", for example. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gender bias on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717034630/http://femtechnet.newschool.edu/wikistorming/ to http://femtechnet.newschool.edu/wikistorming/
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209213415/http://dub.washington.edu/pubs/364 to http://dub.washington.edu/pubs/364
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
Frustrating
I find it very frustrating when anyone tries to help fix this, it gets denied at every turn. Also, as a newbie Wikipedian, I feel like what's the point. Every time I mention something it either gets ignored or rejected. I was even told "Bullshit" at one point. And if I try to make changes other than commas, they are never accepted. It makes me extremely angry. (Reading this talk page also makes me extremely angry.) Tlinse (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
- I know that it can be very frustrating at the beginning, but hang in there, it's worth it! When newcomers edit, these edits are often watched by certain editors. Everyone makes mistakes in the beginning, but the goal is to produce an encyclopedia in many languages with as much knowledge as possible! --WiseWoman (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Volunteers
Wikipedia is essentially an encyclopedia manned (personed?) by volunteers which means that if there is a gender gap this is because more men are choosing to donate their time than women are. This is in contrast to a business which hires people, where if there was a gender bias the employer could be blamed. We don't need to mention all this but it does make it important that we mention the word volunteers. Why do some editors object? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
- I completely agree. Wikipedia is not choosing men over women; but women are choosing other things over contributing to Wikipedia. The only way to fix the ratio is to get women more interested in contributing to Wikipedia, and that's the direction I'm hoping this conversation goes to. Plus, I don't think that there is much of a bias towards the male perspective because one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia, and why it succeeds, is that it forces articles to be peer-reviewed, which weeds out biases (granted, you might find biases in less popular articles). Kentronhayastan (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- We aren't interested in fixing the ratio, we can leave that to others, we are only interested in reliable sources others have re this issue Personally I think men are just as capable as women of fixing gender biases but ur personal opinions don't count ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
- Richard, unless you are the Queen of England, I would prefer that you avoid use of the royal we. This is important because we have an invested interest in fostering a quality encyclopedia. The gender gap manifests itself in a encyclopedia overly-representing the male perspective, and largely failing to incorporate female perspectives. This leads to inadvertent violations of Wikipedia's intended goal of offering a neutral viewpoint. On my part, I think that the gender gap in terms of contributors is highly related with the general gender disparity in computing.
However, I would argue that there are understandable (and un-soveable) factors that contribute the disparity in terms of article subjects. First of all, a great many of Wikipedia's articles are dedicated to sports-related subjects. A great amount of these articles are biographies of individual athletes. Unfortunately, the reality is that due to the fact the women have far fewer professional sports leagues, and women's sports have been less represented than male sports at the Olympics. Additionally, men's professional sports leagues generally have been around far longer than their female counterparts, and thus have a far larger number of athletes in their annals. As a consequence, I would presume that a decent chunk of the article disparity is composed of sports articles.
Additionally (to understate it) women have been either formally or informally excluded from many pursuits throughout much of western history (such as the arts and politics). Thus, the annals in many categories have far greater number of male biographies than female.
These are not the only reasons why the article disparity exists, but I would believe that they certainly are a contributing factor.. 04:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Richard, unless you are the Queen of England, I would prefer that you avoid use of the royal we. This is important because we have an invested interest in fostering a quality encyclopedia. The gender gap manifests itself in a encyclopedia overly-representing the male perspective, and largely failing to incorporate female perspectives. This leads to inadvertent violations of Wikipedia's intended goal of offering a neutral viewpoint. On my part, I think that the gender gap in terms of contributors is highly related with the general gender disparity in computing.
- We aren't interested in fixing the ratio, we can leave that to others, we are only interested in reliable sources others have re this issue Personally I think men are just as capable as women of fixing gender biases but ur personal opinions don't count ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Change over time and new studies
There is exactly one article cited here that was published in 2017, and none from 2018. Most are from 2015 or earlier.
I assume there's been a lot more written about this issue, and it would be very useful to know whether there's a trend over time in terms of the gap in participation. Unless this is discussed in a different article (in which case merging is a good idea), this really needs an update. Eikko (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)
re: Gender bias
Perhaps it is time to look at the continuing bias despite of extreme repeated efforts from a new perspective: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932017000141
Helpful to differentiate "gender bias" from statistics about the gender of editors, as much as possible
I realize that men and women are likely to read & edit certain topics disproportionately. If fewer women choose to spend time on Wikipedia, I do not see that as "bias", that is a choice by many individuals. Actual "bias", on the other hand, would be seen in content that disparaged women. We, as a community, can and must work to correct biased content. However, as a man, I do not feel I must edit less so that a larger proportion of edits are done by women. Pete unseth (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- It is relevant because the disparity in editor demographics is widely seen as a major contributing factor in the disparity in coverage. Also bias doesn't necessitate that we have content that disparages a group, but would includes situations where we simply have no, or greatly reduced coverage, even if the coverage we have is ostensibly neutral. I may also mean that where we have comparable coverage, that coverage may be of a substantially lower quality,. For example, comparing the number of GAs and FAs we have about women's verses men's topics. GMGtalk 18:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
- "Bias" is defined as "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair" by Oxford Dictionaries, even Wikipedia's definition is fairly simillar : "Bias is disproportionate weight in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair". If a restaurant restricts the access of customers based on race, gender, religion - that is bias. If mostly people of a certain demographic (e.g.: gender) chose to go to a certain restaurant - that is not bias. Equating fair personal choices to gender bias is a concept creeping effort that ignores the actual definitions of the concept. Mcrt007 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
- The gender gap around editors leads to disproportionate weight of men's interests (as mentioned by GreenMeansGo above) and points of view. Additionally, environments that are nearly homogenous are so for a reason, intentional or not. Therefore, the gender gap is indicative of an environment that disproportionately disincentivizes female editing and/or disproportionately incentivizes male editing. The gender gap and bias cannot be fully separated because the gender gap affects the writing and did not happen in a vacuum. CLPond (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)CLPond
- This entire discussion is embarrassing and the article is tripe. As an outsider with no vested interest, entertaining articles regarding racial and gender bias for Wikipedia editors is such a silly thing. If women (like me) and POCs do not want to contribute to a free encyclopedia, who cares?31.208.27.41 (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
Please expand "causes" section.
Hello everyone. This is a very important article and it deserves to be updated and expanded. Towards the end of the "causes" section there's one article that I would like to see explained or summarized. I found a pdf of it (the article is licensed under a CC license according to the sagepub database that the DOI takes one to, but here it is freely available elsewhere): https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Wikipedia-%2C-sociology-%2C-and-the-promise-and-of-Big-Adams-Br%C3%BCckner/3113385e688367416c243e32b8442fa5d7acb353 Here is the CC license that they indicate in their publication: http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ And here's further information at the sagepub database: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 07:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Potential new sources
Because this topic is so important, I just did a quick superficial search on Google for new sources. I'll list them below to encourage myself, and others, to update this neglected (I wonder why 🙃) article.
- Paling, Emma (October 21, 2015). "Wikipedia's Hostility to Women: Some female editors have been the target of harassment from their male colleagues—and the gender bias has spilled over into the site's content, too". The Atlantic. Archived from the original on November 4, 2018. Retrieved November 5, 2018.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|dead-url=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - Torres, Nicole (June 2, 2016). "Why Do So Few Women Edit Wikipedia?". Harvard Business Review. Archived from the original on January 6, 2018. Retrieved November 5, 2018.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|dead-url=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - Carroll, Tamar; Nicosia, Lara (March 16, 2018). "Why Wikipedia often overlooks stories of women in history". The Conversation. Archived from the original on August 28, 2018. Retrieved November 5, 2018.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|dead-url=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - Graells-Garrido, Eduardo; Lalmas, Mounia; Menczer, Filippo (February 2015). "First Women, Second Sex: Gender Bias in Wikipedia". Proceedings of the 26th ACM Conference on Hypertext & Social Media: 165–174. arXiv:1502.02341. doi:10.1145/2700171.2791036. ISBN 978-1-4503-3395-5.
{{cite journal}}:|archive-date=requires|archive-url=(help); Check date values in:|archive-date=(help); Unknown parameter|dead-url=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - Simonite, Tom (August 3, 2018). "Using Artificial Intelligence to Fix Wikipedia's Gender Problem". Wired. Archived from the original on September 17, 2018. Retrieved November 5, 2018.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|dead-url=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - Kao, Samantha (September 27, 2018). "Learning about gender bias in Wikipedia articles". Wiki Education. Archived from the original on November 5, 2018. Retrieved November 5, 2018.
{{cite web}}: Unknown parameter|dead-url=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - Maher, Katherine (October 18, 2018). "Wikipedia mirrors the world's gender biases, it doesn't cause them". The Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on November 4, 2018. Retrieved November 5, 2018.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|dead-url=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - Kerr, Emma (March 20, 2018). "Women's-Studies Students Across the Nation Are Editing Wikipedia". The Chronicle of Higher Education. Archived from the original on September 22, 2018. Retrieved November 5, 2018.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|dead-url=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - Alexandra, Rae (May 16, 2017). "Wikipedia Knows It Has a Sexism Problem... And Is Trying Surprisingly Hard to Fix It". KQED. Archived from the original on November 5, 2018. Retrieved November 5, 2018.
{{cite news}}: Unknown parameter|dead-url=ignored (|url-status=suggested) (help) - Ford, Heather; Wajcman, Judy (March 1, 2017). "'Anyone can edit', not everyone does: Wikipedia's infrastructure and the gender gap:". Social Studies of Science. 47: 511–527. doi:10.1177/0306312717692172. ISSN 0306-3127.
Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 18:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
- I was curiously searching on YouTube and found another potential source to incorporate: Hussain, Netha; Al-Kashif, Reem (July 22, 2018). "Research on gender gap in Wikipedia: What do we know so far?". Wikimania. Retrieved November 17, 2018.
{{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|dead-url=(help) - I find this one particularly promising, since it includes an analysis of the literature, was done recently, and works against ethnocentrism. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 00:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
What does this mean?
A published source is quoted as saying that editing here requires "particular forms of sociotechnical expertise and authority that constitute the knowledge or epistemological infrastructure of Wikipedia." What does this mean?! Somebody who has access to the original source in its context, please help us understand this. Pete unseth (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
- It means that it's not enough to be good at a certain subject but you need to navigate a complex meta-knowledge on how to write about it on Wikipedia, a peculiar theory of knowledge. From critics, it may be interpreted as an euphemism for "you need to join the groupthink of the male cabal" or "you need to adopt the language of the dominant class to survive". Nemo 18:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
- Being good at a subject is often irrelevant in Wikipedia, since editors are neither allowed to do original research on any topic, nor to express their opinions in the main text of an article. Much of Wikipedia's content is more reflective of its policies, guidelines, and how it evaluates any potential source. Dimadick (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
- Wat does this mean? It's garbage of the highest order. This is how it is: generally speaking, men and women are different; they have different thought processes, different aspirations, different abilities, different interests and different lots of other things. That's why more men edit Wikipedia than do women. Is this a problem? No. Should anything be done about it? No. Is this whole article a crock of shit? Probably. 5.81.164.70 (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- That's like...you're opinion...man. GMGtalk 22:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Wat does this mean? It's garbage of the highest order. This is how it is: generally speaking, men and women are different; they have different thought processes, different aspirations, different abilities, different interests and different lots of other things. That's why more men edit Wikipedia than do women. Is this a problem? No. Should anything be done about it? No. Is this whole article a crock of shit? Probably. 5.81.164.70 (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Being good at a subject is often irrelevant in Wikipedia, since editors are neither allowed to do original research on any topic, nor to express their opinions in the main text of an article. Much of Wikipedia's content is more reflective of its policies, guidelines, and how it evaluates any potential source. Dimadick (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Rationale for dubious template
I'm in discussion with someone in OTRS who pointed out this article to me. I just added a template to the second sentence. To help make sure there's no confusion, I'm not contesting for a second that Wikipedia has "fewer and less extensive articles about women". The reason I added a template is that this implies that this uncontroversial fact is a natural consequence of the gender makeup of Wikipedia. While that's plausible, it is far from obvious and deserves a citation to a study.--S Philbrick(Talk) 21:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
- Agree. It seems to be a correlation/causation fallacy. It is assuming that women are more likely to write articles about women than men. This may be true, but we should not be making these assumptions. Also there are other factors, such as a general lack of available references available for women in certain topics which is not our fault. Since no one else has commented I will remove it pending a source that makes it clear. AIRcorn (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Agreed too. Zezen (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Apparent original research
This recently added material looks like WP:SYNTH or just plain WP:OR to me. There is no indication that the cited sources discuss the Wikipedia gender gap or gender bias, so the stated conclusion that the sources' claims explain Wikipedia's gender gap is original research. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
- @PrestigousChimp: Could you please participate in this discussion rather than reverting without explanation? —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
- I have removed this again, per the reasons explained by Granger. While the article should give more room to discussing external reasons for Wikipedia's gender gaps (in addition to possible biases of Wikipedia itself), this needs to cite reliable sources that explicitly discuss Wikipedia. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Racial bias on Wikipedia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)
Can we find a better word than proclivity in the first sentence?
I stumbled over the word "proclivity" in the first sentence and had to look it up. I consider myself a near-native English speaker so I think it's fair to assume that others will also not know what this word means. It's an important word (first sentence!). Can we please replace it with something clearer? According to a dictionary entry: "a tendency to choose or do something regularly; an inclination or predisposition towards a particular thing. "a proclivity for hard work" Similar: liking inclination tendency leaning disposition propensity bent bias penchant predisposition predilection partiality preference taste fondness weakness proneness velleity What do you reckon? EMsmile (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
- I had the same reaction to the word. I completely rewrote the opening sentence, which was "The gender bias on Wikipedia reflects a systemic proclivity concerning female editors and articles about women stemming from a majority-male editorship on the online encyclopedia." I felt it suggested in rather absolute terms that Wikipedia's biases in biographies are caused entirely by editor demographics, which is an assertion the article should explore but isn't a definition. The sentence also left out Wikipedia deficiencies in covering women's views and interests outside of articles that are specifically about women. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
- Thanks a lot, Clayoquot - that's so much better! I made a further small change because I think the concept to all three aspects together, not either/or.EMsmile (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)
Potential reason for little amount of autobiographies
Starting off, I am a female. Let's resume. Let me make this point clear. There are MANY biographies of women here. Most females do not do Wikipedia stuff, they are helping out their nations in their own special way. We do not choose which types of people visit certain websites, ESPECIALLY one which promotes neutrality. It is just the simple, unavoidable fact that more biographies exists of males than females. Instead of trying to create an entire campaign just to "be in support" of a movement, I would like to say this: If an autobiography of a female doesn't exist, it will soon be created. I personally do not see major improvements of women on Wikipedia. Maybe some articles here and there. People get stories written for achievements they made, not for the gender they have. Women rights have only been enacted a few centuries ago, men have always had freedom for THOUSANDS of years. Of course there won't be as many articles! Before someone reverts this topic because I offended their feelings on a place made for differing opinions, please respond to me with 5 major facts that prove there is bias on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.231.11 (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
- No bias? Look at the hack job on
Sidney Powell,for example, as compared to say, treatment of L. Lin Wood or Rudy Giuliani. Pkeets (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Article is built on a false premise
This discussion is closed. It is no longer productive (if it ever was)
|
|---|
|
This article is based on an acute distortion, that it is the fault of men, WP editors, for the so called "bias" that is assumed to exist here at Wikipedia, as revealed by the opening statements in the lede and other sections of this article:
The fact that many women already edit freely here at Wikipedia clearly supports the idea that no one is stopping women from editing. You are saying that men have this power over women. If that is your position you have just admitted that women are weaker than men and can't perform in an environment where there is no physical strength, shouting, etc involved. And comparing a CEO to freely editing on a public encyclopedia is reaching. For every women that is denied a CEO position you'll find a dozen men who have also been turned down. If we just go by the raw statistics here one could conject that men are more often treated unfairly. All we have are statistics about some simple men to women ratio, conjecture and the notion, supported by your selection of sources, that women are being prevented by men from editing here at Wikipedia. Another thing you have ignored is that throughout history there have been more men involved in history, so naturally there are more biographies, etc, involved. Also ignored is the idea that at least 90% of history books are written by men, and again, no one is stopping women from writing and publishing. The same holds true with history courses -- or are we supposed to believe also that women are being 'prevented by men' from taking history courses and pursuing a career in history? You can cling to your narrow selection of source but no one, much less this article, has addressed those facts. There are biased sources in all areas of study, especially in subjects involving religion, nationality and politics. Social issues are no different. That the article doesn't present one source that offers a different and more realistic view more than suggests that the sources here have been cherry picked and are merely preaching to the choir who clearly harbors their own bias. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Are the sources themselves biased?I haven't checked them all out yet, but thus far I'm seeing the same sort of ideas, and assumptions, being advanced in the sources used here. In almost every case they are taking the "imbalance" between male and female writers and then (leap!) making the same assumption that this is all because of male bias. For example in the work by JOSEPH REAGLE and LAUREN RHUE some rather questionable assertions are being made.
First a reply, and then a question:
Inconclusive statementsThe article has a number of inconclusive and questionable statements, and in some case more than suggest that the reason behind the gender gap is actually the fault of women. Examples:
Once again the sources in many cases are not even written by scholars in psychology or social science and too often are simply written by college academics or journalists who have simply given us numbers for male to female editors and have leaped to their own conclusions. No one has given us a list of editors who have been banned for sexual harassment (is there even one?), edit warring with a female editor because she's a women, or has linked us to one single Talk page where "male bias" is clearly evident, not assumed, and which has targeted a female editor for no other reason than she is a women. If "male bias" is supposed to be this all pervasive occurrence here at Wikipedia, where are the actual examples? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Yes the article doesn't say "male bias", it says, beginning with the title, "gender bias", and then goes on to speculate how female editors find the Wikipedia environment unfriendly towards women, etc, etc. Here is just a sampling of the sources chosen for this article:
Starting with the title, this is the general theme of the article. A number of editors, past and present, feel the title, and the theme, of the article is misleading and is composed of supposition almost entirely and is based on such sources, indeed listed in the References section. The only concrete facts presented thus far are the ratios for male to female editors and the number of articles about women. I have quoted from the article a good number of times trying to point out the negative bias towards male editors. You seem to be suggesting that the article is not pointing a finger at assumed problematic male editors. Are you now trying to say women don't participate near as much as men for reasons of their own overall, having little to do with the behavior of male editors? The article, and its sources, more than convey the idea that the ratio of male to female editors, and their assumed attitude towards women, is 'the' problem. In other words, male editors overall are assumed to be the problem. The article, and its sources, doesn't bother to qualify anything – it simply speaks in a general and overly obtuse capacity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Bowing outIt's pretty clear that my position doesn't have much support around here, so it's time to bow out. You can go on believing that most of the male editors who have contributed 80-90 % of the articles here have been "biased, sexist, unfriendly", etc to the women editors. It seems if that were actually true, Wikipedia would not have remained one of the most widely used websites in the world all of these years. I had asked for examples of this so called male bias that has supposedly blocked or discouraged all these (helpless?) women from editing. If the only thing someone can bring to the table to support the idea is that some 'she' was referred to as a 'he', which no doubt was unintentional, then that's a bit disappointing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
|