General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhere are all the women, Wikipedia?
Where are all the women, Wikipedia?
The gamechanging inventor Margaret E Knight is summed up in only 500 words on the site, where men make up 83% of notable profiles and most of the editors too
?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=20335c35f07a157352b61ddd9c557720
Margaret E Knight a prolific inventor so little-known that we arent even able to verify this photo of her.
It is often said that women have been written out of history. We have all heard of Alexander Graham Bell and Thomas Edison, but few are familiar with their contemporary, Margaret E Knight, a prolific Amerian inventor who held over 20 patents and was decorated by Queen Victoria. Knight created her first device, a safety mechanism for textile machines, after witnessing a factory accident aged just 12. She later invented a machine that created the flat-bottomed paper bags still used in grocery stores today. When she died in 1914, an obituary described her as a woman Edison. Somewhat dispiritingly, she has also been described as the most famous 19th-century woman inventor. But how many of us know her name?
If you were to try and research Knights life and work, you might struggle. Her Wikipedia profile is just under 500 words long; Edisons is more than 8,500. Of course, Edisons contribution to the development of the electric light warrants a significant write-up, and his legacy deserves a lengthy profile. But his Wikipedia page also contains minute detail about his early life, diets and views on religion. By contrast, information on Knights page is scant, though she too invented an item still widely used today. Her profile lacks many details (including any mention of her first invention), which are available elsewhere online, particularly on websites dedicated to commemorating the work of female inventors. That such resources exist says a lot about the erasure of women such as Knight from more mainstream information sources.
This week, it was revealed that only around 17% of notable profiles on Wikipedia are of women. While we bemoan the sexist bias that prevented many historic female figures from being rightly commemorated and celebrated, there is a risk that history may be repeating itself all over again.
Perhaps the disparity is unsurprising given that only around 15% of Wikipedias volunteer editors are female. Reasons suggested for the gender gap have ranged from the elitist nature of the hard-driving hacker crowd to the overt harassment and misogyny faced by female editors on the site. When one editor suggested a women-only space on Wikipedia for female contributors to support one another and discuss online misogyny, other users vowed to fight the proposal to the death.
The trouble with Wikipedia having such a vast gender gap in its notable profiles is that it is one of the most commonly used information sources in the world. A 2011 study found that 53% of all American internet users look for information on Wikipedia, increasing to almost 70% of college-educated users. According to web-traffic data company Alexa, it is currently the fifth most visited website in the world. For such a popular source to present millions of students, researchers and journalists with a hugely gender-biased roster of articles could have a real impact on everything, from young peoples career aspirations to which high-profile figures are invited to speak at conferences and events.
. . . .
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2016/dec/09/where-are-all-the-women-wikipedia
SubjectiveLife78
(67 posts)Do people know if a man or woman edits something?
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)There are conflict-of-interest rules. I've edited the article about DU but Skinner shouldn't.
As to knowing if it's a man or a woman, some users choose to give biographical information on their user pages, but many don't.
The relevant Wikipedia article reports on information gathered by the site's governing body:
I don't know what's indicated by more current information.
Bucky
(54,041 posts)longship
(40,416 posts)brooklynite
(94,713 posts)If someone feels the need for more biographies, they should write them.
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)Even if unqualified to do so, or ignorant of the subject? Seems an irrational and simplistic point at best... but, if it helps one make that point, then so be it.
(crowd-sourcing does not bestow relevant academic knowledge to an individual... just in case you didn't know that)
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The Wikipedia standard is: "Write what you know or are willing to learn about."
Until today I'd never even heard of the woman named in the OP. I'm completely ignorant of the subject. But it would perfectly acceptable for me to devote the effort to research, online and/or offline, to find the information needed to expand her bio.
Of course, people will tend to edit articles in areas where they're already knowledgeable. I know much less about science than about politics, so I've created or edited more articles about politicians and elections than about science-related topics. This is an issue with an all-volunteer project. It results in several well-known biases, because the people who choose to edit Wikipedia are more likely to edit Western-oriented articles, computer-oriented articles, etc.
smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Wikipedia plays a huge role in preliminary research for a wide variety of people. Pretending it's as easy as "women should write and edit more, then!" displays an ignorance of how society as a whole views women, their views and their credentials, especially online. This story is a feature of our culture, not a bug.
niyad
(113,532 posts)and I notice that that crowd is not addressing the issue of the hate leveled against women by online hackers, etc. it is definitely not a level playing field.
MineralMan
(146,325 posts)It's time to get to work on those articles about women, I think.
byronius
(7,400 posts)niyad
(113,532 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)See "Gender bias on Wikipedia" for a pretty comprehensive treatment, including the Wikimedia Foundation's efforts to address the problem.
niyad
(113,532 posts)Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)If you're willing to put in the work of researching and writing, I'll be glad to help you with any problems that arise from your unfamiliarity with the site. The markup language is pretty simple but it's unlike any I've encountered elsewhere, and there are site-specific rules and procedures that it would help you to be aware of.
Still, although knowing those things is helpful, it's not necessary. One important Wikipedia guideline is: "Be bold!" If you add some useful information but you format it incorrectly, some other user will come along and fix it. You probably won't get yelled at. In fact, there are "Wiki-gnomes" who positively delight in making that sort of correction.
AngryAmish
(25,704 posts)Otherwise shut up, jerky.
niyad
(113,532 posts)how about addressing some of the issues the author mentioned?