Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List

[cwdoom]

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/31/busin ... ml?_r=2&hp

[Blair]

"Sue Gardner, the executive director of the foundation, has set a goal to raise the share of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015"

I predict a Goal!!!!

Always interested in what power women have to say, and how it influences the divorce rate (ahem, no countries mentioned as an example)

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

Sue Gardner, the executive director of the foundation, has set a goal to raise the share of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015, but she is running up against the traditions of the computer world and an obsessive fact-loving realm that is dominated by men

So the majority of fact-lovers are men. I see nothing wrong with her trying to get women more interested in the facts. That would be an improvement, wouldn't it? That has to be the implicit goal, right? But...

Her effort is not diversity for diversity’s sake, she says. “This is about wanting to ensure that the encyclopedia is as good as it could be,”

Well, if women are not interested in the facts, how can doubling the amount of female contributors (which still only would bring it up to a quarter of the contributions) ensure the quality of wikipedia?

But because of its early contributors Wikipedia shares many characteristics with the hard-driving hacker crowd, says Joseph Reagle, a fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard. This includes an ideology that resists any efforts to impose rules or even goals like diversity, as well as a culture that may discourage women.

“It is ironic,” he said, “because I like these things — freedom, openness, egalitarian ideas — but I think to some extent they are compounding and hiding problems you might find in the real world.”

Adopting openness means being “open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists,” he said, “so you have to have a huge argument about whether there is the problem.”

I don't see the basis of an argument here - much less why one would "have to have a huge argument" - I would need to see some evidence that there is a culture that discourages women. Not just a point that "even misogynists" are involved in wikipedia. Even misandrists are also involved in wikipedia. Besides, the article complains about:

With so many subjects represented — most everything has an article on Wikipedia — the gender disparity often shows up in terms of emphasis. A topic generally restricted to teenage girls, like friendship bracelets, can seem short at four paragraphs when compared with lengthy articles on something boys might favor, like, toy soldiers or baseball cards, whose voluminous entry includes a detailed chronological history of the subject.

Even the most famous fashion designers — Manolo Blahnik or Jimmy Choo — get but a handful of paragraphs.

It's difficult to believe that misogynists would waste their time bothering women about what they are writing about friendship bracelets or fashion designers.

Wikipedia is experiencing the same problems of the offline world, where women are less willing to assert their opinions in public.

I have not noticed women having a problem asserting their opinions in public. There may be situations where women do feel intimidated, but I have especially noticed that women online seem very comfortable asserting their opinions even in areas that were intended to be for men.

“When you are a minority voice, you begin to doubt your own competencies,” she said.

Until they did the study, nobody knew that women were only 13% of wiki contributors - so it's hard to claim that they felt outnumbered when they didn't know they were outnumbered.

Ms. Margolis said she was an advocate of recruiting women as a group to fields or forums where they are under-represented. That way, a solitary woman does not face the burden alone.

What are they going to do? Go to her computer room so she does not have to type to wikipedia all by herself?

Sometimes, conscious effort works. After seeing the short entry on Ms. Barker, Ms. Gardner added a substantial amount of background. During the same time, Niko Bellic’s page has grown by only a few sentences.

That's how wiki works. If something needs more info, and someone wants more info on there, that person enters it. Most people don't need a whole article written about the fact that they entered some information on wikipedia though.

[Animus]

In many women's worlds "compassion" is king. Not your Genius brand of compassion but something all-together more inactive. A woman will see or hear an error, know it to be an error, and out of "compassion" for the one who erred; say nothing at all. Maybe this is just my experience, but women think it more compassionate to let someone live a lie, then to break their heart telling them the truth. A woman may look upon a wikipedia article riddled with errors and drum up some "compassion" for the waywardness of wikipedia, then close their browser. As a consequence, unlike men, they experience no compulsion to correct the errors, especially where others might be offended. A man might get severely upset that such an error has made its way into being and set about immediately foregoing all else to correct the error. That may mean going to bed late and getting up late after spending all night researching, verifying and editting an article. I do this kind of stuff and my girlfriend accuses me of wasting valuable time, time that could be spent massaging her back or something with real perceived value, at least within the confines of her present world-view.

[Elizabeth Isabelle]

A man might get severely upset that such an error has made its way into being and set about immediately foregoing all else to correct the error. That may mean going to bed late and getting up late after spending all night researching, verifying and editting an article.

There's only one "t" in editing. :P

Kevin made a similar observation when it came to the way men and women handle children. Although men seem to have more of a capacity to be silly and play with children, they are also stricter with the rules, and will correct a child immediately each and every time they get out of line. Women, although they are generally bothered by children's poor behavior (though some seem to get numb to some of it and not even notice sometimes), they won't correct each and every infraction. They will let it go, then correct it maybe once every 3-4 times the child does the unwanted behavior, and after awhile just completely flip out. Therefore, with the father, the child learns that no means no, and with the mother the child learns that sometimes they can get away with things, and consequences are erratic and unpredictable.

The ways in which society changed with the fatherless generations seems to be a major indicator of how important the masculine role is in raising children. Animus, I think that you explained why in your post above.

[pointexter]

I'm not pulling my weight.

Its not fair.

Gimme.

[cousinbasil]

The ways in which society changed with the fatherless generations seems to be a major indicator of how important the masculine role is in raising children. Animus, I think that you explained why in your post above.

Look at a segment of society that has seen practically nothing but fatherless generations - such as black America. The masculine role here began as an expensive slave, one whose expense could only be justified by getting as much free labor from as inhumanly possible. The cause/effect chain has been stark in its cyclical nature. The symptoms are many, but the one that come to mind is the leading cause of death of black males between 18 and middle age is still murder in this country. It is not a natural state of affairs that a father chooses to be absent from his offspring; rather, it is evident that a man is rather driven from them. The reasons are pretty basic, but in keeping with the language of this thread, it can be said that a if man finds it impossible to be a role model, he feels that he is failing in his most basic function. If he cannot support his family, he justifiably feels he cannot also be a role model for the next generation as a fully-functioning male in society. This leads to both the male and the family unit being left behind in a state which is not the natural state, that being living with each other and supporting each other.

[Homer]

Sue Gardner, the executive director of the foundation, has set a goal to raise the share of female contributors to 25 percent by 2015, but she is running up against the traditions of the computer world and an obsessive fact-loving realm that is dominated by men and, some say, uncomfortable for women.

I hope the above paragraph is the result of a wording-crisis for it suggests that a lot of women are uncomfortable with facts, or men who love facts.

If facts are what is important, then who contributes them to Wikipedia should be of little relevance. Perhaps Sue's goal should be to increase Wikipedia’s facts by 25% rather than its female contributors by 25%.

Her effort is not diversity for diversity’s sake, she says. “This is about wanting to ensure that the encyclopedia is as good as it could be,” Ms. Gardner said in an interview on Thursday.

This claim implies that without a woman's touch it ain't good enough. Which implies "facts" are not good enough.

Among the things that makes an encyclopedia "good", I doubt the ratio of female to male contributors matters... especially if both are of equal education/intelligence... and the quote bellow suggests that is indeed the case:

“The difference between Wikipedia and other editorially created products is that Wikipedians are not professionals, they are only asked to bring what they know.”

Which begs the question, by increasing the female Wikipedians by 25%, who will likely not be professionals, how is the encyclopedia's quality increased? Having more information does not equate to having good information.

“Everyone brings their crumb of information to the table,” she said. “If they are not at the table, we don’t benefit from their crumb.”

Some crumbs are not beneficial, others harmful or detrimental.

“The big problem is that the current Wikipedia community is what came about by letting things develop naturally — trying to influence it in another direction is no longer the easiest path, and requires conscious effort to change.”

If it is not natural for a lot of women to contribute facts, or love facts, as the above statement implies, why mess with nature? Isn't the task of changing nature (or what's natural for a woman) pointless?

[paco]

Tedious,,,

I've lost all my gaping Fallacy friends in one setting. What do I do?

[paco]

I>E

Genius isn't a matter of choice. So,on, and, so, on.

Ah,

but, the gender wars seems a bit more primitive to my understanding. John Locke. Wear it!

[Animus]

Men are not the enemy, but the fellow victims. The real enemy is women's denigration of themselves. - Betty Friedan

Don't get into the bra-burning, anti-man, politics-of-orgasm school. - Betty Friedan

When feminists identify some "oppression" in society with respect to their gender and put on a cloak of victimization, they continue to put the power of determination in the hands of men.

Let's put it this way:
A woman wants to fly a plane and tells her husband so. Her husband says she is incapable of flight due to her feminine characteristics. The woman then feels victimized, feels barred from flying by her husband, but in-fact, through this sense of victimization the woman continually puts the power over her back into the hands of her husband. She should not take a victim approach, or in transactional analysis-the child state, but she face her husband as an equal.

In modern society, it is not just that some men view women as inferior, it is that most women accept that as a final determination about their own effectiveness. Instead of proving the claim wrong, they perpetually prove the claim right by submitting themselves to male prejudice. The only way to effectively combat such prejudice is by absolutely ignoring it and persistently demonstrating it to be wrong. Not by whining about it and expecting someone else do make the changes. That only passes the buck. Woman's problem is her innate sense of weakness which causes her to continually pass responsibility off to men, even as she is trying to liberate herself from them. Responsibility ultimately lies wherever the power is, so the implicit assumption is that women have no power and cannot free themselves, but must eternally depend on men.

[Animus]

In that light, perhaps the goal should be simply to add to specific articles on wikipedia, and not separate the phenomena into categories of gender. If there is nothing on Cabbage Patch dolls then go write the article, don't complain that women are not writing it, especially if you are a woman, and don't complain that men aren't writing it either, its not encumbent upon anyone to do so. If you want the article, you write it.

The only people who can "correct" the disparity are women, men cannot add one iota to woman's contribution to wikipedia. She has to do it. And when she does, she'll find a movement towards greater equality. But if she merely lays back and jeers on with victimized self-righteousness, and doesn't lift a finger to add to the articles, then she is a hypocrite and a fool.

[uncledote]

I'm not pulling my weight.

Its not fair.

Gimme.

Brilliant.

[Animus]

Interesting side-thought:

The rastafarians renounce any usage of the term "oppression" for its sounding like "up-pression" as if one was pressed upward. They have replaced it with the term "downpression" to illustrated the downward-pressing effect of oppression. An example of this usage is jamaican reggae musician Peter Tosh's song "Downpressor Man" aka "Sinner Man"

[cousinbasil]

In that light, perhaps the goal should be simply to add to specific articles on wikipedia, and not separate the phenomena into categories of gender. If there is nothing on Cabbage Patch dolls then go write the article, don't complain that women are not writing it, especially if you are a woman, and don't complain that men aren't writing it either, its not encumbent upon anyone to do so. If you want the article, you write it.

The only people who can "correct" the disparity are women, men cannot add one iota to woman's contribution to wikipedia. She has to do it. And when she does, she'll find a movement towards greater equality. But if she merely lays back and jeers on with victimized self-righteousness, and doesn't lift a finger to add to the articles, then she is a hypocrite and a fool.

Excellent! Now iI'm beginning to see why the GF wields a knife around the place.

[Animus]

In that light, perhaps the goal should be simply to add to specific articles on wikipedia, and not separate the phenomena into categories of gender. If there is nothing on Cabbage Patch dolls then go write the article, don't complain that women are not writing it, especially if you are a woman, and don't complain that men aren't writing it either, its not encumbent upon anyone to do so. If you want the article, you write it.

The only people who can "correct" the disparity are women, men cannot add one iota to woman's contribution to wikipedia. She has to do it. And when she does, she'll find a movement towards greater equality. But if she merely lays back and jeers on with victimized self-righteousness, and doesn't lift a finger to add to the articles, then she is a hypocrite and a fool.

Excellent! Now iI'm beginning to see why the GF wields a knife around the place.

Somewhat, but I said the same thing to her and she agreed with it. This is also the brainchild of Betty Friedan, prolific author and leader of the "Second Wave" feminist movement.

There is some gender disparity around my place, and my GF has suspected me of being misogynistic. It is all too ironic then that I freely and willingly put myself to every task around the house; dusting, mopping, vaccuuming, dishes, laundry -- all the traditionally "female" duties -- in addition to performing the "male" duties; shoveling snow, cutting grass, fixing eaves, handles, outlets, walls, maintaining the vehicle(s) and anything and everything else that needs to be done, but she seems to still arbitrarily relegate duties to me that are traditionally male. Such as all of the latter examples. She has shoveled snow and cut grass a few times, but she won't go online and discover how to fix a broken banister, or even grab a screwdriver and try, or perform any maintenance on her vehicle. Its as if she carte blanche denies herself the potential or fears it, or whatever, she just doesn't do it but expects me to do it.

I could point this out to her and probably get into an argument over it. The thing is she is either going to feel unappreciated or inferior and neither of those is ideal. I cannot force her, nor even make it apparent to her, that she still denigrates herself to this ideal of femininity. I have no such delusions about maleness, I've baked, sewn, planted, crochetted, needle-pointed and even pushed back my cuticles once. When I visited my father over the Christmas holidays he was giving himself a manicure and talking about his days at the spa. Part of the "second wave" was to liberate men from an "outmoded male mystique" which made them feel "unnecessarily inadequate when there were no bears to kill." Or made them feel unmanly getting a manicure. Women weren't going to force men into the spas, men would have to go on their own, just as women need to take responsibility for their own inactivity.

[cousinbasil]

Its as if she carte blanche denies herself the potential or fears it, or whatever, she just doesn't do it but expects me to do it.

As long as she's satisfied with the job you do, you're all right. But it won't end there, I'm afraid. There will be something that must needs be done and she'll want a professional to do it. Then it will be your fault that you are not competent enough, and your fault again for not bringing in enough money to pay for the best professional for this job, whatever it turns out to be, because there will be one. And she will think of you baking and needle-pointing and start planning how she is going to get with this nice lawyer she met a few months back, now he can afford shit, and well she's not getting any younger... Sorry, Ryan, my own twisted, bitter memories rear their ugly little heads once again...

[Animus]

Its as if she carte blanche denies herself the potential or fears it, or whatever, she just doesn't do it but expects me to do it.

As long as she's satisfied with the job you do, you're all right. But it won't end there, I'm afraid. There will be something that must needs be done and she'll want a professional to do it. Then it will be your fault that you are not competent enough, and your fault again for not bringing in enough money to pay for the best professional for this job, whatever it turns out to be, because there will be one. And she will think of you baking and needle-pointing and start planning how she is going to get with this nice lawyer she met a few months back, now he can afford shit, and well she's not getting any younger... Sorry, Ryan, my own twisted, bitter memories rear their ugly little heads once again...

when a thief meets a saint, he sees the saint's pockets

[cousinbasil]

when a thief meets a saint, he sees the saint's pockets

Don't know who you are quoting and I am not sure why you chose this quote.

But the quote is true, of course. Reminds me of when a GF and I took in a homeless 15 year old girl in NYC who was an inveterate shoplifter. Not that we were saints by any means, but the girl was a thief and she stole from us, but we had expected and anticipated that.

This thread is about gender gap, so in that spirit I shall observe that women are fully as larcenous as men at heart, probably more so, given the opportunity.

[Animus]

when a thief meets a saint, he sees the saint's pockets

Don't know who you are quoting and I am not sure why you chose this quote.

But the quote is true, of course. Reminds me of when a GF and I took in a homeless 15 year old girl in NYC who was an inveterate shoplifter. Not that we were saints by any means, but the girl was a thief and she stole from us, but we had expected and anticipated that.

This thread is about gender gap, so in that spirit I shall observe that women are fully as larcenous as men at heart, probably more so, given the opportunity.

It was in response to this: "my own twisted, bitter memories rear their ugly little heads once again..."

As I understand it is an old Sufi saying:

Whatever we perceive in the world around us tends to reflect who we are and what we care about most deeply, as in the old saying, "When a thief sees a saint, all he sees are his pockets. ~ "Robert Frager, Heart, Self & Soul, The Sufi Psychology of Growth, Balance and Harmony

[Tomas]

when a thief meets a saint, he sees the saint's pockets

Don't know who you are quoting and I am not sure why you chose this quote.

But the quote is true, of course. Reminds me of when a GF and I took in a homeless 15 year old girl in NYC who was an inveterate shoplifter. Not that we were saints by any means, but the girl was a thief and she stole from us, but we had expected and anticipated that.

This thread is about gender gap, so in that spirit I shall observe that women are fully as larcenous as men at heart, probably more so, given the opportunity.

The Basil Story ~ The Good Samaritan