Wikipediocracy

Huffington Post: Sarah Stierch, Wikimedia Fellow, Wants To Bring More Women To Wikipedia

What makes it challenging to be a female editor on Wikipedia?

After talking to women, surveying women, they said, one, it’s an attitude problem. It’s the Internet, people are jerks. We have a motto at Wikipedia, "Don’t be a dick." There’s a lot of dick, pun intended, on the Internet. It’s a culture problem, so that’s one thing, and people need a lesson in manners. Two, the help system on how to edit Wikipedia is really complex. When you have a bunch of guys, computer guys who created Wikipedia, writing the rules on Wikipedia, it tends to get a little wordy and expansive and anal-retentive. And it gets a little overwhelming.

(Stierch's fellowship ended a few weeks ago. While the headline is misleading, the article makes it clear that she was, rather than is, a Wikimedia Fellow.)

Also picked up by Adelaide Now.

Are you a Wikipedia editor? Why do you think so few women get involved in the curating and editing of the site, and what would it take to close the gap?

Have your say below.

When you have a bunch of guys, computer guys who created Wikipedia, writing the rules on Wikipedia, it tends to get a little wordy and expansive and anal-retentive. And it gets a little overwhelming.

Ms. Stierch appears to be suggesting that women are stupid rather than admitting that Wikipedia is rampantly hostile to women and is filled with stalkers/internet weirdos.

DanMurphy wrote:

When you have a bunch of guys, computer guys who created Wikipedia, writing the rules on Wikipedia, it tends to get a little wordy and expansive and anal-retentive. And it gets a little overwhelming.

Ms. Stierch appears to be suggesting that women are stupid rather than admitting that Wikipedia is rampantly hostile to women and is filled with stalkers/internet weirdos.

Wikipedia is rampantly hostile to pretty much everyone not admitted to the top table, regardless of gender. It seems clear to me that one of Wikipedia's fundamental problems is its resemblance to some kind of weird cult, where you're allowed to freely and thanklessly contribute your labour so long as you're not critical of the Word as handed down and treat the Elders with the deference to which they believe they are entitled. Rather similar to Scientology in a way. Perhaps such cultish web sites are less attractive to females than to males?

Malleus wrote:

DanMurphy wrote:

When you have a bunch of guys, computer guys who created Wikipedia, writing the rules on Wikipedia, it tends to get a little wordy and expansive and anal-retentive. And it gets a little overwhelming.

Ms. Stierch appears to be suggesting that women are stupid rather than admitting that Wikipedia is rampantly hostile to women and is filled with stalkers/internet weirdos.

Wikipedia is rampantly hostile to pretty much everyone not admitted to the top table, regardless of gender. It seems clear to me that one of Wikipedia's fundamental problems is its resemblance to some kind of weird cult, where you're allowed to freely and thanklessly contribute your labour so long as you're not critical of the Word as handed down and treat the Elders with the deference to which they believe they are entitled. Rather similar to Scientology in a way.

Perfectly captured.

Perhaps such cultish web sites are less attractive to females than to males?

I think it's more to due with the fact that none of the top people in wikipedia's power structure has more of a grasp on intersex politics than your average middle school boy.

Vigilant wrote:I think it's more to due with the fact that none of the top people in wikipedia's power structure has more of a grasp on intersex politics than your average middle school boy.

Count me as an agnostic where "intersex politics" are concerned. People are people, regardless of gender. I've occasionally wondered what subjects it is that would be so improved by having more female editors, as during my time at Wikipedia those I encountered were contributing significantly to topics such as the history of Texas, racehorses, medieval English history, coal mining, and South American politics among others. The demographic that Wikipedia ought to be far more concerned about is that almost half of its registered editors (46% reportedly) are under the age of 22.

I've got no idea where this data comes from, and I somewhat doubt its reliability, just as I doubt the reliability of the oft-quoted 13% female editors figure, but it would be interesting to analyse whatever data exists by age, as I suspect that the gender gap is not consistent across age groups.

Malleus wrote:

Vigilant wrote:I think it's more to due with the fact that none of the top people in wikipedia's power structure has more of a grasp on intersex politics than your average middle school boy.

Count me as an agnostic where "intersex politics" are concerned. People are people, regardless of gender. I've occasionally wondered what subjects it is that would be so improved by having more female editors, as during my time at Wikipedia those I encountered were contributing significantly to topics such as the history of Texas, racehorses, medieval English history, coal mining, and South American politics among others. The demographic that Wikipedia ought to be far more concerned about is that almost half of its registered editors (46% reportedly) are under the age of 22.

I've got no idea where this data comes from, and I somewhat doubt its reliability, just as I doubt the reliability of the oft-quoted 13% female editors figure, but it would be interesting to analyse whatever data exists by age, as I suspect that the gender gap is not consistent across age groups.

The figure is quoted on page 8 of the Wikimedia Strategic Plan, and I believe it's from the United Nations University Survey, which had by far the largest sample size (176,192 respondents) of the surveys I'm aware of.

HRIP7 wrote:

Malleus wrote:

Vigilant wrote:I think it's more to due with the fact that none of the top people in wikipedia's power structure has more of a grasp on intersex politics than your average middle school boy.

Count me as an agnostic where "intersex politics" are concerned. People are people, regardless of gender. I've occasionally wondered what subjects it is that would be so improved by having more female editors, as during my time at Wikipedia those I encountered were contributing significantly to topics such as the history of Texas, racehorses, medieval English history, coal mining, and South American politics among others. The demographic that Wikipedia ought to be far more concerned about is that almost half of its registered editors (46% reportedly) are under the age of 22.

I've got no idea where this data comes from, and I somewhat doubt its reliability, just as I doubt the reliability of the oft-quoted 13% female editors figure, but it would be interesting to analyse whatever data exists by age, as I suspect that the gender gap is not consistent across age groups.

The figure is quoted on page 8 of the Wikimedia Strategic Plan, and I believe it's from the United Nations University Survey, which had by far the largest sample size (176,192 respondents) of the surveys I'm aware of.

Thanks, I'll maybe have a look at that later.

I'm reminded that the Oxford English Dictionary relies to a significant extent on members of the public contacting it with documented examples of the earliest useage of individual words. I wonder if the OED has ever bothered to analyse the demographics of its contributors? I somewhat doubt it. Wikipedia's problem isn't a lack of female editors, it's a lack of adult editors of whatever gender.

HRIP7 wrote:...and I believe it's from the United Nations University Survey, which had by far the largest sample size (176,192 respondents) of the surveys I'm aware of.

All self-selected "in situ" for the survey, correct?

What remains to be seen is a credible study conducted from a random, probability sample of the GENERAL POPULATION, to gain a more true understanding of how people interact with Wikipedia.

thekohser wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:...and I believe it's from the United Nations University Survey, which had by far the largest sample size (176,192 respondents) of the surveys I'm aware of.

All self-selected "in situ" for the survey, correct?

What remains to be seen is a credible study conducted from a random, probability sample of the GENERAL POPULATION, to gain a more true understanding of how people interact with Wikipedia.

I'd probably agree with you, but how would the population of Wikipedia editors be defined? All registered accounts, no IP editors? I'd have many more questions, but this is almost certainly the wrong thread for a discussion of sampling proposals.

Malleus wrote:Wikipedia's problem isn't a lack of female editors, it's a lack of adult editors of whatever gender.

Yep.

HRIP7 wrote:

Malleus wrote:Wikipedia's problem isn't a lack of female editors, it's a lack of adult editors of whatever gender.

Yep.

Those in authority, such as the saintly Newyorkbrad with his unswerving support for child administrators who can mimic what's risibly called "maturity" on Wikipedia long enough to pass an RfA, have much to answer for. It's quite telling that Newyorkbrad has contributed almost nothing to Wikipedia's content, yet feels confident to pontificate about and pass judgement on those who have done far more than he ever could.

HRIP7 wrote:Huffington Post: Sarah Stierch, Wikimedia Fellow, Wants To Bring More Women To Wikipedia

What makes it challenging to be a female editor on Wikipedia?

(Stierch's fellowship ended a few weeks ago. While the headline is misleading, the article makes it clear that she was, rather than is, a Wikimedia Fellow.)

Don't forget to mention that she's using Wikipedia to glorify herself, with the considerable help of an administrator, plus her friends in the Ada Initiative. One of the latter created it, other female Wikipedians (including one Arbcommer) edited it, she edited it, and the administrator Crisco 1492 protected it from vandals. Oh, and Tom Morris applied pending changes to it, to "keep it pure".

Plus, they now have a category for "Wikipedia personalities". Watch that list grow, and grow.

EricBarbour wrote:

HRIP7 wrote:Huffington Post: Sarah Stierch, Wikimedia Fellow, Wants To Bring More Women To Wikipedia

What makes it challenging to be a female editor on Wikipedia?

(Stierch's fellowship ended a few weeks ago. While the headline is misleading, the article makes it clear that she was, rather than is, a Wikimedia Fellow.)

Don't forget to mention that she's using Wikipedia to glorify herself, with the considerable help of an administrator, plus her friends in the Ada Initiative. One of the latter created it, other female Wikipedians (including one Arbcommer) edited it, she edited it, and the administrator Crisco 1492 protected it from vandals. Oh, and Tom Morris applied pending changes to it, to "keep it pure".

Plus, they now have a category for "Wikipedia personalities". Watch that list grow, and grow.

If Stierch is worth a Wikipedia article then so is my cat, who's been dead for 10 years but made quite a name for herself locally by biting everyone who came into our house. But the interesting articles in the Wikipedia personalities category are yet to be written; Stierch isn't "interesting", just another drone. Jack Merridew is interesting, Ottava Rima is interesting, Geogre is interesting ...

EricBarbour wrote:Plus, they now have a category for "Wikipedia personalities". Watch that list grow, and grow.

Wow, I had no idea that category existed... and no idea that Koavf (T-C-L) had an article about himself: Justin Knapp (T-H-L)

Quick, what do Jimmy Wales, Sarah Stierch and Justin Knapp have in common?

"Bright-line rule" my ass.

Mason wrote:

EricBarbour wrote:Plus, they now have a category for "Wikipedia personalities". Watch that list grow, and grow.

Wow, I had no idea that category existed... and no idea that Koavf (T-C-L) had an article about himself: Justin Knapp (T-H-L)

Quick, what do Jimmy Wales, Sarah Stierch and Justin Knapp have in common?

"Bright-line rule" my ass.

I love that this "notable" wikipedian's article has been up for deletion for about 22 days and... almost no Wikipedians have noticed. If a tree is notable in a forest and no one's there...

Mason wrote:Wow, I had no idea that category existed... and no idea that Koavf (T-C-L) had an article about himself: Justin Knapp (T-H-L)

I need to make a note of that. It was created by an Italian editor called Itemirus, who I have never seen before. Sock.
And yes, Justin edited it himself. Read the AFD. Who is this Bonkers The Clown mutant?? Who needs to pay people
to edit your WP bio, when you have insane inclusionists to support you?

So, it's okay for Justin to have a BLP, but OrangeMike must not?

EricBarbour wrote:So, it's okay for Justin to have a BLP, but OrangeMike must not?

That all depends whether he's "notable". This is clearly a word that means something different on Wikipedia to its normal meaning, or indeed the meaning implied on Wikipedia by the various policies and guidelines; I'm unclear what it does mean these days.

I hear Jimmy briefly manufactured and sold, through an intermediary on eBay, a line of jizz covered tshirts.

Call now, operators are standing by...

Vigilant wrote:I hear Jimmy briefly manufactured and sold, through an intermediary on eBay, a line of jizz covered tshirts.

Where did he get the stuff?

Outsider wrote:

Vigilant wrote:I hear Jimmy briefly manufactured and sold, through an intermediary on eBay, a line of jizz covered tshirts.

Where did he get the stuff?

I believe it was manufactured during a brief stint editing a young woman's biography on wikipedia.

lilburne wrote:

Untitled13.jpg

Most of the "high-profile" women editors in the project (SandyGeorgia etc.....) are older, close to retirement age type folks who could tolerate "newbie policy bs" more than regular editors. I think the project can, and should concentrate in bringing those type of editors to contribute to the project. As you guys explain perfectly above, the project has never been a pleasant place for college age women, and I only seen very few who "survived" in the project for over a year.

Jaranda wrote:Most of the "high-profile" women editors in the project (SandyGeorgia etc.....) are older, close to retirement age type folks who could tolerate "newbie policy bs" more than regular editors. I think the project can, and should concentrate in bringing those type of editors to contribute to the project. As you guys explain perfectly above, the project has never been a pleasant place for college age women, and I only seen very few who "survived" in the project for over a year.

Rather sweeping, WP isn't a pleasant place for editors full stop, it certainly isn't pleasant for women of any age and I find with age I am far less likely to suffer fools.

I do think attracting more mature editors might be a step forward though rather than targeting students. Just don't be fooled into thinking older equates to more tolerant.

Just passing by wrote:

Jaranda wrote:Most of the "high-profile" women editors in the project (SandyGeorgia etc.....) are older, close to retirement age type folks who could tolerate "newbie policy bs" more than regular editors. I think the project can, and should concentrate in bringing those type of editors to contribute to the project. As you guys explain perfectly above, the project has never been a pleasant place for college age women, and I only seen very few who "survived" in the project for over a year.

Rather sweeping, WP isn't a pleasant place for editors full stop, it certainly isn't pleasant for women of any age and I find with age I am far less likely to suffer fools.

I do think attracting more mature editors might be a step forward though rather than targeting students. Just don't be fooled into thinking older equates to more tolerant.

I agree with this viewpoint 100%, I only seen a few cases of the WP campus program being successful in getting active editors. I only know 3 or 4 of them and 2 was the professors themselves. But that program deserves an entire section of criticism. I noticed the editor retention program is focusing on the wrong group of editors, the teenage vandalism fighters and the likes instead of retaining the pure content contributors. There is some discussions of bringing more educated editors, especially PHd students to the project, but it really haven't gone nowhere. The only thing that ever been close to successful in getting new editors is the Teahouse. But women does have more consequences of editing than men, just like in Facebook, Twitter, etc because you never know what type of people are outthere online.

The quickest way to solve this would be to require real names for the various hats on wikipedia and have a prerequisite of having written at least 1 FA before getting the bit.

With the anonymous "janitors" telling the "professors" what they can and cannot write, it's the inmates running the asylum.

Vigilant wrote:The quickest way to solve this would be to require real names for the various hats on wikipedia and have a prerequisite of having written at least 1 FA before getting the bit.

With the anonymous "janitors" telling the "professors" what they can and cannot write, it's the inmates running the asylum.

With real names it probably won't solve anything. Vandalism fighters and new page patrolers are easily replaceable, but so much dedication is focused to keep them around and not our content writers, that's a terrible philosophy that always left me (post 2008-2009) in disgust. One idea is for "experts" who decide to edit anonymous, be certified by the Foundation so these "janitors" don't harass them out of the project, and to avoid another Essjay situation. I know it was proposed and shut down in the past, but I think Wikipedia evolved to the point that it's an absolute necessary to look for a solution.

I see a scenario in which an high-profile subject expert starts editing the project quietly, the first "wrong edit" they do, they get attacked with all sorts of policies, get driven off and goes to the media (like the Associated Press or NYT) or a major scholarly journal about their experience. That would be a PR disaster for the project that probably isn't fixable. Of course its a common scenario nowadays, but I haven't seen a huge media outburst on it, mostly heh.

Jaranda wrote:With real names it probably won't solve anything.

I beg to differ. If you've watched WO for the last year, you can see the cockroaches scurry when I pull out my flashlight.
The bulk of the problem admins on WP suffer from internet tough guy syndrome. Making them identify with real names keeps the vitriol down.

Jaranda wrote:Vandalism fighters and new page patrolers are easily replaceable, but so much dedication is focused to keep them around and not our content writers, that's a terrible philosophy that always left me (post 2008-2009) in disgust. One idea is for "experts" who decide to edit anonymous, be certified by the Foundation so these "janitors" don't harass them out of the project, and to avoid another Essjay situation. I know it was proposed and shut down in the past, but I think Wikipedia evolved to the point that it's an absolute necessary to look for a solution.

Just make a new class of editor.
Draft a rule that says that these people will, generally, have the right of way in their content expertise.
Declare, after vetting, that Mr BlahBlahBlah is an "Expert Editor" in XXXXXXXXX field.
Explicitly state that harassing them is a blockable/desysopping offense.
Do it several times so the kiddies get the point.
Done.

Jaranda wrote:I see a scenario in which an high-profile subject expert starts editing the project quietly, the first "wrong edit" they do, they get attacked with all sorts of policies, get driven off and goes to the media (like the Associated Press or NYT) or a major scholarly journal about their experience. That would be a PR disaster for the project that probably isn't fixable. Of course its a common scenario nowadays, but I haven't seen a huge media outburst on it, mostly heh.

I don't see that. I see the subject matter expert throwing up their hands and just leaving. There's a bit of gravedancing by the hoi polloi and the whole thing resets. In the meantime, the subject matter expert tells EVERYONE they work with/know that wikipedia is a pile of festering shit. Dramatically fewer subject matter experts ever even try to edit wikipedia.

Jimbo and Sue think thoughtful and useful thoughts about why there are no subject matter experts.
Teh communitah is stumped and begins posting thank you videos from the least socially maladapted of the WP in crowd to howls of derision by the normals/barbarians at the gates.

Many women prefer anonymity on the internet and I suspect lots of women don't reveal their gender on their WP profile.

Vigilant wrote:...the least socially maladapted of the WP in crowd...

You tripped yourself up there.

thekohser wrote:

Vigilant wrote:...the least socially maladapted of the WP in crowd...

You tripped yourself up there.

No.
I typed what I meant.

This is, apparently, the best wikipedia has to offer the outside world as incentive to come edit some articles.
"They're just like youuuuuuuu", could be the tagline.

My underlying point is that, while I see these people on the street and have no ill will towards them, I do not see them represented at all in the professional arena.

They are social outliers, even in the bay area, and should probably not be used to recruit "teh normals".

Vigilant wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Vigilant wrote:...the least socially maladapted of the WP in crowd...

You tripped yourself up there.

No.
I typed what I meant.

Oh, so you're saying they found at least some semi-normal people to showcase in video and photo format. Sorry, I misunderstood.

I tend to agree that the WMF did a pretty nifty job with this. It's good spin, good PR for the project. It just forces us to up our game a little. We should be thinking about videos (which is something we were discussing a while back -- get WP "victims" to provide their video testimonials as to why Wikipedia is dangerous / awful / damaging / intellectually off course, etc.

Jaranda wrote:Most of the "high-profile" women editors in the project (SandyGeorgia etc.....) are older, close to retirement age type folks who could tolerate "newbie policy bs" more than regular editors. I think the project can, and should concentrate in bringing those type of editors to contribute to the project. As you guys explain perfectly above, the project has never been a pleasant place for college age women, and I only seen very few who "survived" in the project for over a year.

Heh. I'm no where near retirement. At all. And neither are two other female editors (Not SG) I'm in regular contact with. We just don't make a lot of drama, that's all.

thekohser wrote:

Vigilant wrote:

thekohser wrote:

Vigilant wrote:...the least socially maladapted of the WP in crowd...

You tripped yourself up there.

No.
I typed what I meant.

Oh, so you're saying they found at least some semi-normal people to showcase in video and photo format. Sorry, I misunderstood.

No, I'm saying they found the least bad choices.
I'm not impressed with who I've seen as their ambassadors-at-large.

Then again, I may not be in their core target demographic.

Vigilant wrote:The quickest way to solve this would be to require real names for the various hats on wikipedia and have a prerequisite of having written at least 1 FA before getting the bit.

There is much to be said for the first point, but I disagree with the second. You can be an excellent content contributor and never get an FA. You can certainly be a fine admin without an FA. This proposal would put the RfA process at the mercy of those who own FA, and nobody would want that.

There is also the injustice that the FA doesn't always go to the most deserving recipient, the one who contributes most of the content. It sometimes goes to the editor who polishes it up.

Outsider wrote:

Vigilant wrote:The quickest way to solve this would be to require real names for the various hats on wikipedia and have a prerequisite of having written at least 1 FA before getting the bit.

There is much to be said for the first point, but I disagree with the second. You can be an excellent content contributor and never get an FA. You can certainly be a fine admin without an FA. This proposal would put the RfA process at the mercy of those who own FA, and nobody would want that.

There is also the injustice that the FA doesn't always go to the most deserving recipient, the one who contributes most of the content. It sometimes goes to the editor who polishes it up.

You make a good point about FA and the broken process there.

There should be some metric for getting to admin/hat collector that doesn't involve reverting petty vandalism for a year with a half assed bot.

Vigilant wrote:There should be some metric for getting to admin/hat collector that doesn't involve reverting petty vandalism for a year with a half assed bot.

Actually, spending a year making thousands of mindless bot edits is a sure sign that something is wrong upstairs, and should disqualify and editor from adminship.

Vigilant wrote:

Outsider wrote:

Vigilant wrote:The quickest way to solve this would be to require real names for the various hats on wikipedia and have a prerequisite of having written at least 1 FA before getting the bit.

There is much to be said for the first point, but I disagree with the second. You can be an excellent content contributor and never get an FA. You can certainly be a fine admin without an FA. This proposal would put the RfA process at the mercy of those who own FA, and nobody would want that.

There is also the injustice that the FA doesn't always go to the most deserving recipient, the one who contributes most of the content. It sometimes goes to the editor who polishes it up.

You make a good point about FA and the broken process there.

There should be some metric for getting to admin/hat collector that doesn't involve reverting petty vandalism for a year with a half assed bot.

You'll be surprised, unlike back in 2006/2007, those types of editors are not passing RFA nowadays, and they tend to fall into [[WP:SNOW]] as well.