Skip to comments.How can Wikipedia woo women editors?
Posted on 04/07/2014 6:34:56 PM PDT by MinorityRepublican
Women make up only 9% of Wikipedia editors. Educators say raising that number is key to improving the online encyclopaedia, and have started campaigns to do just that.
At the Smithsonian American Art Museum, Depression-era artist Natalie Smith Henry's vivid depiction of a farm family hangs high on the wall.
But until recently, Henry didn't exist, at least not according to Wikipedia. Then Chelsea Tufarolo, a student at American University, decided to write her an article about her.
It was Tufarolo's first post on the world's largest knowledge-sharing resource.
Editors and activists are trying to address the root of what critics describe as a major information gap on Wikipedia by getting more women to post. Roughly 91% of Wikipedia's editors are men, according to a 2011 Wikimedia Foundation survey.
Wikipedia purports to capture the sum of the world's knowledge, says Sara Snyder, deputy chief of the Media and Technology Office at the Smithsonian American Art Museum.
But "it's not accurate to call it the world's knowledge if it's just half the population's knowledge," she says.
Wikipedia hosts 4.4 million articles and consistently ranks as one of the top 10 most-visited websites in the world. Yet a Wikimedia study in 2011 revealed a fairly uniform picture of the writers behind Wikipedia - the average Wikipedian is a white, educated, computer-savvy man who lives in the US or Europe.
(Excerpt) Read more at bbc.com ...
why do they have to? so what? they don’t want to spend time doing that. what the hell is wrong with them doing what they want online?
I am glad they are addressing this issue, this keeps me up all night worrying about it.
Gee I thought 100% of Wiki’s editors were liberal pussy’s.
How does Wikipedia know the sex of its editors?
Send money? No? How about some lovely flowers?
They can form a Herpedia. What’s stopping them?
Most just can't keep it to themselves.
Maybe Wiki needs to set up a gay editors' Bar, with free drinks.
Would you react differently to a Wiki entry if you knew the author was a woman? If so - who cares?
Make Wikipedia, about feelings
Like I ever cared about the internal plumbing of an author. Why is that so important to man-hating feminists?
Surely they aren't inferring that men and women are different, are they?
Does it really matter? It doesn’t erase the fact world history was made by men.
People are going to do what they are going to do.
Absent specific measurable incentives, people do what they want. That is what drives lefties batty. They think people should behave according to rules.
It is why they don’t even bother to make cRap movies anymore. Whites won’t watch them and Blacks just shoot each other in the theater lobby.
Guys post to Wikipedia, chicks don’t. What are you gonna do about it?
I’m sure Obama will pick up a phone and pen and make it right.
Free tampon coupons?
In being politically correct, Wikipedia managed to be politically incorrect. Hilarious.
How far should gender balance be struck? Across ALL articles or only on those that interest women?
...and the sum of the world's balderdash.
Wikipedia editors are self selected. There is no need for them to be “wooed.”
>>How far should gender balance be struck? Across ALL articles or only on those that interest women?<<
Use the L.A. Coliseum solution: Delete all articles until you are left with 50% female-commented ones.
With the current 90+% of male authors it only means they will have to delete, what, 4 million entries?
I told you - don’t call me Shirley!
Much of it is pure fiction.
And given the biases of whoever edits any relevant article, trust the conclusions presented at your own risk.
Wikipedia carries no warranty as to the truthfulness of content, the reputation of its editors or the veracity of opinions expressed on wiki subject pages.
I was being sarcastic. I thought it was obvious.
Several million years worth of deletions in the name of the latest political fad.
I don’t think Wikipedia will spend much time on it.
The way to draw women editors is to make sure that all the entries are about abortion and free contraception. Sandra Fluke explained that those are the only things women know or care about these days.
The answer is simple, MORE KIM KADASHIAN ENTRIES.
MORE TWILIGHT ENTRIES.
MORE BEYONCE BRAGGIN’ NEWS.
You know, make it more about herstory.
So shut the men up because there is not enough bimbos studying... it makes sense to destroy the West that way.
Ok. How about saying it is unfair Jesus is a man?
Privilege feministers need to go the Guillotine.
“The answer is simple, MORE KIM KADASHIAN ENTRIES.
MORE TWILIGHT ENTRIES.
MORE BEYONCE BRAGGIN NEWS.
You know, make it more about herstory.”
I’m sorry you’ve had such shallow women in your life that you would have that opinion.
“Women make up only 9% of Wikipedia editors. Educators say raising that number is key to improving the online encyclopaedia, and have started campaigns to do just that.”
Huh? Can anybody explain to me how and why women editors can or will “improve” Wikipedia? Is the female version of facts different from the male version?
Read the article. There are more entries on porn stars than female artists, politicans, etc etc.
Maybe most women are too smart to waste their time working their asses off for no pay on somebody else’s project.
How can Wikipedia woo women editors?A free boob job then abortions or contraceptives for a lifetime...Aren't those the things they care about most?
Thank you for posting this vital piece.
I must say I have been agonizing over this very question for about two years now.... just agonizing! /sarc
I’m going by the internet top Yahoo/Google news items.
Of course we COULD use more revisionist history from the types of Gloria Steinem...