Discussion » Technology » Wikipedia Gender Biases?

  • Mengmeng
    Mengmeng wrote:
    <p><span><span>First, the research showed that only 16 percent of new editors joining Wikipedia during 2009 identified themselves as female, and those females made only 9 percent of the edits by the editors who joined in 2009. To make matters worse, female editors are more likely to stop editing and leave Wikipedia when their edits are reverted as newcomers.</span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span>Second, the researchers involved in the study focused on the effects of the gender imbalance on Wikipedia. They found that Wikipedia articles about topics of particular interest to female editors are significantly shorter than "male" articles. Furthermore, they found that Wikipedia's coverage of movies with female-skewed audiences is lower quality than its coverage of male-skewed movies. Overall, Wikipedia seems to be growing in a way that is biased toward topics of interest to males.</span></span></span></span></p> <p>Third, the researchers analyzed the role of gender in conflict among Wikipedia's editors. The research indicates that the articles females tend to edit are twice as likely to be about controversial or contentious topics. In addition, female editors are significantly more likely to have their early contributions undone by their fellow editors, and are more likely to be indefinitely blocked by fellow editors. Taken together, these findings hint at a culture that may be resistant to female participation.</p> <p><span><span>"We expected to find that females would avoid conflict, but to our surprise we found just the opposite," Riedl said (1 of the researcher). "We're not sure exactly what this means, but it may give us more insights into the Wikipedia culture that could be one of the contributing factors to the gender gap."</span></span></p> <p><span><span><span><span></span></span></span></span></p>
  • Simen Wangberg

    There are no girls on the Internet.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I think I saw this on Jezebel last week. It's not at all surprising; Internet culture in general has a male bias (ergo Grampa Mao's quip, which happens to be #30 on the Rules of the Internet).

    On the other hand, I'm not so sure that Wikipedia editors are required to specify their genders, which makes the statistics rather meaningless.

    Once again, I must boast my credentials as an Internet senior citizen and point out that I recall, fondly, the days when it wasn't standard practice to post photos of oneself or even to share personal details, unless one was cruising a cybersex chatroom. And even then we generally assumed 18/f/ca actually meant 43/m/id.

    And then Anonymous girls on 4chan started referring to themselves as femanons instead of anons. Ladies. I am disappoint.

    a/s/l?

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I'm sorry. I'm not letting this go. It really rankles my jimmies.

    Tons of radical feminists made some very compelling arguments about the English language being sexist and male-biased, going so far as to propose to spell "woman" as "womyn" so that it wouldn't be just derivative of "man".

    And then some fucking cunts, probably 18/f/ca, wanted to start calling themselves "femanons" and "anonymiss," like they were conceding this cultural territory to collective cock-ism. What bullshit! Every oldfag knows that m00t always wished to be the little girl. Anonymous was always androgynous. Or a futanari.

    Those whores.

  • Mengmeng
    Mengmeng wrote:

    FYI: I read this from http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110811162831.htm
    But I extracted the focus of the research, maybe I had omitted something important.

    When I read this, I couldn't figure out the lacking of female editors having anything to do with gender gap. Maybe because I don't use Wikipedia very often, I cant see it clearly. I was just wondering, for encyclopedia, it should be editted neutrally, not in favor of any gender, so it doesn't matter if the contributor is male or female. And maybe female generally spends less time on internet, so there are less female editors, or some other reasons, so it is inconvincible to come to that conclusion.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    I get that, @Mengz. It's just that dichotomizing "topics or particular interest to males/females" reeks of condescension and gender essentialism. Who decides which topics men or women should be interested in?

    "A January 2011 New York Times article pointed out that Wikipedia's coverage of topics like friendship bracelets or 'Sex and the City' pales in comparison to that of toy soldiers or 'The Sopranos.' We wanted to do the research to see if this disparity was carried throughout Wikipedia."

    TV shows and toys are the focus of their content analysis. But there isn't anything essentially masculine or feminine about these things except in to whom they are marketed. Plenty of chicks watch The Sopranos. Some dudes write Sex in the City fanfics. I think the whole premise of this so-called research is utter rubbish.

  • V. Bilrost
    V. Bilrost wrote:

    There're too less female nerds and geeks in the world.

  • 随便叫兽
    随便叫兽 wrote:

    That's really the sort of essentialism that I was ranting about earlier. Biology, like other "life sciences" such as zoology and botany, was once considered to be feminine, as opposed to the masculine "material sciences" such as chemistry and physics. Those preferences, passions, and obsessions seem to change over time, and are not necessarily indicative of essential differences in the genders.

Please login to post a reply to this thread.

WeLiveInBeijing

WeLiveInBeijing.com is a social community for people living in or traveling to Beijing.

Powered by: Bloc