Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Mollie Hemingway ·
Jan 31, 2011 at 1:13pm
The New York Times reports:
In 10 short years, Wikipedia has accomplished some remarkable goals. More than 3.5 million articles in English? Done. More than 250 languages? Sure.
But another number has proved to be an intractable obstacle for the online encyclopedia: surveys suggest that less than 15 percent of its hundreds of thousands of contributors are women.
Maybe it's because I've made one or two edits there, but this stat surprises me. I wonder what it says about men and women that one sex is so much more invested in this encyclopedic tool over the other. Help a sister out: Why do you think this is so? And what does it mean, if anything, about the quality of information being posted on Wikipedia?
- Comment (22)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jul '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Because guys are better multi-taskers. While they're online checking out porn and flatulence jokes, they can also post to Wikipedia.
Women, on the other hand, can only handle one Kim Kardashian website at a time.
Aug '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Spin it optimistically: women are less likely to be obsessive SME nerds who spend hours in flame wars over Wikipedia's definition of "neutral".
Oct '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
I can't offer any help with your query, but this little incident somehow seems pertinent. A few years ago there was an ad in our local community paper that read:
Encyclopedia for sale. No longer necessary, wife knows everything.
Sep '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
It's my understanding that there is a disproportionate number of articles on Wikipedia related to online gaming and similar pursuits, which appeals a certain demographic (males under 25). A better statistic might be, what fraction of Wikipedia editors are female among the more traditional encyclopedia articles (humanities, science)? I think you'll find the numbers more balanced there.
It's just a thought.
Jun '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
On a whole I would say (this may sound like a prejudice) but I feel men tend to be more interested is abstract concepts than women. Women tend to the practical. In addition men are more heavily invested in being right than women. It's an ego thing with guys to be right, perhaps, its even testosterone driven.
Aug '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
That was actually more true in the earlier days of Wikipedia, which started out as an anarchic, no-expertise-needed replacement for Nupedia. Before it became the 2nd result on every Google search, Wikipedia was the place to go if you wanted an episode list for Buffy the Vampire Slayer, or a detailed description of the timeline in some obscure anime.
It would be impossible to categorize articles into male-oriented versus female-oriented... but it might be interesting to track which articles that female 15% was most interested in editing/contributing.
Jul '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Yeah, guys are more interested in abstract concepts like beer, bosoms and football...
Edited on Jan 31, 2011 at 2:17pmDec '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Because most men are procrastinators, and we search the Earth for fodder for further procrastination.
If we can find something to post on Wikipedia, or someone else's entry to correct related to our latest escape, we get a double procrastination bonus.
The fact that I say this on the internet, during my company's business hours, shouldn't be lost on anyone.
Edited on Jan 31, 2011 at 2:19pmSep '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Because when women ask men to take out the trash, they take it to wikipedia.
Edited on Jan 31, 2011 at 2:29pmMay '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Also, the female contributors only get paid 70% of what the male contributors get.
Jul '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
That's right. They have to post twice as hard to get half the credit.
By the way, I wonder who put up the Wiki post on "Glass Ceiling"?
Jun '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
The kind of displaced sexual energy that it takes to write long articles about the history of the integrated circuit is definitely part of a "man's world." Women don't give themselves enough credit for our industrial and electronic revolution. When women say no, nerdy men need to go find something else to occupy their minds.
Aug '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Rewrite the headline thus:
"Research shows that women are less likely than men to waste their employers' time and money by endlessly editing Wikipedia entries."
Jun '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Kenneth
Yeah, guys are more interested in abstract concepts like beer, bosoms and football... · Jan 31 at 2:16pm
Edited on Jan 31 at 02:17 pm
How about e = mc2 (squared). O yeah, I remember, now, it came to Einstein in a flash as he was crushing an empty beer can into his forehead. Sorry, Kenneth, you do, in fact, know everything! So I humbly apologize.
Aug '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Maybe women are more likely to seek out more reliable sources of information than Wikipedia, and therefore are less likely to spend ANY time at the site?
Just an idea.
Oct '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Two words: Oprah Winfrey. Care to guess again? :-)
Jul '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Cas Balicki
Kenneth
Yeah, guys are more interested in abstract concepts like beer, bosoms and football... · Jan 31 at 2:16pm
Edited on Jan 31 at 02:17 pm
How about e = mc2 (squared). O yeah, I remember, now, it came to Einstein in a flash as he was crushing an empty beer can into his forehead. Sorry, Kenneth, you do, in fact, know everything! So I humbly apologize. · Jan 31 at 3:22pm
Sigh.
Edited on Jan 31, 2011 at 3:39pmMay '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Mollie Hemingway: ...surveys suggest that less than 15 percent of its hundreds of thousands of contributors are women.
And what does it mean, if anything, about the quality of information being posted on Wikipedia? ·
I wonder what the proportions were for wikipedia vandals? If you cut out the 98% of men who just vandalize articles with insults about the opposing sports team or adding references to anything that can be used as a reference point for Chuck Norris's masculinity, I bet female contributors outnumber males by a large margin.
May '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Kinda reminds me of the old joke about the division of labor in family decision making.
Woman: In our marriage we have no problems. I make all the small decisions and my husband makes all the big decisions. For example, I decide whether to buy a new house or where we go on vacation.
Man: And what does your husband decide?
Woman: Whether China should be in the UN.
Jul '10
Re: Wikipedia is a Man's World?
Mark: You mean to suggest that there are non-vandals on Wikipedia? Can we ascertain this with confidence in a non-point of view manner? I mean, I've read these guys arguing forever about whether the antichrist logo belongs at the top of the Reagan page or in the bio stats box. And it always collapses into another change war.
(Right now they have the world's longest borehole on the main page. The irony escapes them. The Main Page discussion covers the fact that they will continue to run hurricane stories on the Main Page in perpetuity in response to the deep and abiding hurricane story fatigue they have induced, and they do not mark the Challenger disaster anniversary because it was just seven people rather than something as momentous as a hurricane. There is no facet of this ridiculous anti-enterprise that does not embody man's control freak wheedling of man.)
Some days I am perverse enough to go look at the change wars over classical Rome and Greece. They have made it more rigid, for some pages somebody "they" like decides whether a proposed change goes up. I would never bet on Wikipedia being accurate.