There are no girls on the Internet.
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.
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.
FYI: I read this from
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.
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.
There're too less female nerds and geeks in the world.
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.