Why women have no time for Wikipedia

[HRIP7]

Discuss.

[Randy from Boise]

Very nice piece, Andreas and Nathalie.

I've provided a URL to the Wikimedia-Gendergap-l mailing list.


tim

[Drowninginlimbo]

Great article. This is an important topic and I'm happy to see it covered here.

[HRIP7]

Very nice piece, Andreas and Nathalie.

I've provided a URL to the Wikimedia-Gendergap-l mailing list.


tim

Thanks, Tim and DiL. This was a rush job for us ... a couple of the images have since been replaced (should show shortly once WordPress updates).

[tarantino]

Very well done, you two :)

[Kiefer.Wolfowitz]

The third consecutive outstanding essay.

[sparkzilla]

Jeez, it really would be nice if blog posts like this referenced WO contibutors who have made multiple posts citing clear evidence that most of the reasons for the Gender Gap are false. On Newslines, my crowdsourced content site that aims to replace Wikipedia's biographies and news-based events, 80% of our contributors are women and minorities. See our leaderboard.

But for Wikipedia to actually become a platform fully embraced by women, it would have to change its culture in fundamental ways, reducing its emphasis on anonymity and providing more opportunities for meaningful companionship and satisfying social relationships between its contributors. Failing that, women will simply continue to vote with their feet, and find their enjoyment and altruistic fulfilment elsewhere.

These reasons are false. It wouldn't matter if our interface was crap, we would still get more women posting. We are also making all post approvals anonymous. How can you bully someone if you don't know who they are? Using real names will only result in more offline bullying and harassment, not less. The biggest mistake I made on Wikipedia was to admit who I was.

Wikipedia can never work for minorities and women because its software and policies are specifically designed to exclude them. The reason we get more women posting is because Newslines is created specifically to allow users to add content without the conflicts that are inherent in a wiki-based system. Wikis are built through conflict. Wikipedia's conflict-driven software and policies attract ego-driven white males eager to gain power through the display of their knowledge. The intensity of this conflict excludes other groups.

I go further into this in this post, but the gist of it is that 1) we pay our writers to contribute -- so much for "altruistic fulfilment"! 2) we have system that allows people to add information with no conflict -- so far over 10,000 posts with no trouble 3) posts are assessed on the quality of the post, not on who made them -- no COI or harassment possible 4) we don't allow editors ownership of the page -- denying powerful groups the ability to censor people and text.

The real crime though, is to blame the people who are excluded for the failings of the system. How many times do we have to hear -- by the people who created the system that excludes them -- that women and minorities are not interested, they don't have enough time, they don't know enough, they can't use the interface, they prefer fluffy stuff, and that they are are lazy? It's time to move past these old arguments and see Wikipedia's dysfunction for what it is.

[Textnyymi]

The root of this is that they get compliments and attention elsewhere. When on a website, spending time on a purported mission to give free data to the girl in Africa, if they believe such a thing, is almost the same as spending time to "groom" their own social profiles on websites, they do this to attract "likes" and attention in general.
They can't attract as much attention on Wikipedia as they do on other social sites.

[Midsize Jake]

These reasons are false. It wouldn't matter if our interface was crap, we would still get more women posting. We are also making all post approvals anonymous. How can you bully someone if you don't know who they are? Using real names will only result in more offline bullying and harassment, not less. The biggest mistake I made on Wikipedia was to admit who I was.

That's just it, you can "bully" someone if you don't know who that person is, and identifying oneself doesn't always make things worse. Regardless, many Wikipedians clearly have a huge (and therefore quite unhealthy) amount of personality and ego invested in their Wikipedia accounts. The anonymity issue isn't a one-size-fits-all argument, on either side of the coin.

Wikipedia can never work for minorities and women because its software and policies are specifically designed to exclude them.

But that's covered by this paragraph, no...? (emphasis mine)

As for avoiding people who aren’t congenial, Wikipedia’s very nature and status as the web’s most prominent reference site make its articles and sociology somewhat comparable to waterholes in the animal world – they attract species of editors with opposing agendas who have to somehow coexist, despite the tensions between them, in order to access the social resource that Wikipedia represents to them. It’s stressful. Writing on any mildly contentious topic in Wikipedia both women and men are practically bound to come up against the very sort of people whom they might most avoid associating with in their private lives...

If you're saying that the blog entry doesn't emphasize the software enough as a fundamental aspect of the problem, then I'd probably agree, but IMO it's sufficiently implied for most people. Besides, you start getting into too much talk about software design and its consequences, you start getting lots of glazed-over eyeballs.

[sparkzilla]

That's just it, you can "bully" someone if you don't know who that person is, and identifying oneself doesn't always make things worse. Regardless, many Wikipedians clearly have a huge (and therefore quite unhealthy) amount of personality and ego invested in their Wikipedia accounts. The anonymity issue isn't a one-size-fits-all argument, on either side of the coin.

I think what you are saying is that even people who use a user ID to protect their anonymity can be bullied. That is very true in Wikipedia. However, on Newslines, it's not that easy because the incentives for bullying are less. To turn that around, there is an incentive to bully people on Wikipedia: You bully them, they stop posting and you win. To stop this kind of bullying you need to design or use software where the incentive to bully is lessened.

1. Stop editors having veto rights on whole pages

Wikipedia is touted as a place where anyone can add information, but the reality, as we all know, is that it is extremely difficult to add anything to pages because of editors and admins who appear to own the page. If you try to add something they don't like they gang up on you. Newslines solves the issue of page ownership by not having a page-based structure. Writers add posts and those post are compiled into the page. No-one owns the page. The very worst they can do is to add lots of one-sided posts or try to change other people's posts, but that is countered by the next part...

2. Stop groups of editors from having control over each page

We are currently creating a system where editors are assigned posts randomly, which means they cannot band together to stop other people, or content they don't like going into the site. You may say that it is better to have experts who know a subject, but for the vast majority of pages on Wikipedia this is not necessary - users only need to transcribe sources.

3. Add information based on its merits, not on the credibility of who adds it.

In our upcoming system, editors who approve posts cannot see the user's name, their previous posts, or any other identifying behavior. The only consideration is whether the post meets the inclusion standards, and is formatted correctly. We don't know, and don't care, if posts are created by paid posters, PR companies, experts or non-experts as long as it meets our standards.

Wikipedia can never work for minorities and women because its software and policies are specifically designed to exclude them.

But that's covered by this paragraph, no...? (emphasis mine)

As for avoiding people who aren’t congenial, Wikipedia’s very nature and status as the web’s most prominent reference site make its articles and sociology somewhat comparable to waterholes in the animal world – they attract species of editors with opposing agendas who have to somehow coexist, despite the tensions between them, in order to access the social resource that Wikipedia represents to them. It’s stressful. Writing on any mildly contentious topic in Wikipedia both women and men are practically bound to come up against the very sort of people whom they might most avoid associating with in their private lives...

All they are saying is that there is some kind of rumblings at the waterhole. The truth is, when the lions are around the waterhole the gazelles don't get to drink. The irony is that the lions think the gazelles aren't that thirsty, so they don't let them in. Let's design a better waterhole, where everyone can drink.

If you're saying that the blog entry doesn't emphasize the software enough as a fundamental aspect of the problem, then I'd probably agree, but IMO it's sufficiently implied for most people. Besides, you start getting into too much talk about software design and its consequences, you start getting lots of glazed-over eyeballs.

IMHO every discussion on this site is a result of three things: 1. Wikipedia's software 2. Wikipedia's policies (created to deal with issues in the software) 3. Wikipedia's leadership (created to control issues with the policies and software). The software underlies every complaint and is the core of every problem here, including, and most obviously, the gender gap.

When Wales asked Ward Cunningham about using a Wiki to make an encyclopedia, Cunningham said "But it would still be a wiki". Instead of designing a system from the ground up, they took a system which covered a lot of the bases. It does some things well (attracting young white males, basic encyclopedia topics, basic news) and others very poorly (attracting women and minorities, deep news archive, medical topics). Despite the Utopian claims of Wales and the WMF the reality is that Wikipedia can't be all things to all people, and can never be.

[HRIP7]

The root of this is that they get compliments and attention elsewhere.

It's true that compliments and attention are in short supply on Wikipedia. But why is that a good thing? Nobody really likes to live their life that way – not even men, if they're honest. Attention is like food, and ensuring a supply of attention is a huge motivator in people's actions, especially on Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with that – no more than there is anything wrong with wanting food – but it is important to see it for what it is.

When on a website, spending time on a purported mission to give free data to the girl in Africa, if they believe such a thing, is almost the same as spending time to "groom" their own social profiles on websites, they do this to attract "likes" and attention in general.

I have never met a Wikipedian who really seemed to care about the little girl in Africa, and the priorities of Wikipedia – whether it be the overrepresentation of wrestling, US highways or Doctor Who – say very clearly to anyone who cares to listen that the little girl in Africa might as well not exist. If Wikipedia as a community really cared about that mythical figure, it would cover, as a main priority, all the topics Western kids learn in school, in a way that was easily accessible to an underprivileged kid in the third world.

They can't attract as much attention on Wikipedia as they do on other social sites.

Attention, rapport and communication are one way to create meaning.

[HRIP7]

That's just it, you can "bully" someone if you don't know who that person is, and identifying oneself doesn't always make things worse. Regardless, many Wikipedians clearly have a huge (and therefore quite unhealthy) amount of personality and ego invested in their Wikipedia accounts. The anonymity issue isn't a one-size-fits-all argument, on either side of the coin.

I think what you are saying is that even people who use a user ID to protect their anonymity can be bullied.

Let's have another look at the passage I quoted.

Women’s greater concerns about privacy and identity disclosure on social network sites (Fogel and Nehmad 2009) may also predispose them to interact with individuals they already know and trust (Muscanell and Guadagno 2012), which Facebook and other social network site facilitate through features such as “friending.”

Crocco, Cramer, and Meier (2008) argue that the move toward web-based computing has had an equalizing effect on gendered technology use. If equality is defined as equal in principle access, women in the United States have caught up with men. At the same time, the web is becoming increasingly specialized by gender. Although many sites are male-dominated, women today have more choices of online environments than they did in the past, including social media sites in which they can exercise a degree of control over who reads and comments on their contributions. As discussed further below, users of these social media sites tend to be less anonymous than in earlier text-based forums.

What the text says is that women both like and dislike anonymity: that they dislike about anonymous relationships the fact that they are unfulfilling – they want something else – and that they value anonymity, more so than men, to the extent that it insulates them from the unwelcome attention of others. However, the latter aspect is one of protection and self-preservation, not one of fulfilment. Anonymity per se is not fulfilling.

Your site, Newslines.org, and the motivations for contributing to it differ from Wikipedia in several respects. First, your contributors are paid. The women who participate in your site supplement their income by doing so; and if they have dependents, some of that money will go to them. Participation in your site potentially has an innate social value – it may put food on the table. (Which I think is absolutely great.) The fulfilment comes from the sense of achievement that derives from that, rather than the production of content in itself.

At the same time, you provide a safe environment, in the ways that you describe, because you anonymise contributions. You essentially give contributors something that amounts to "control" over "who comments [to them] on their contributions". The combination works, and it produces results, but if you did not pay for contributions – and Wikipedia seems committed to not doing that – I am fairly certain that your contributions would dry up. The production of content is not intrinsically fulfilling: the rewards are extrinsic.

Again, I think it's great, but it is a different kettle of fish from Wikipedia, where payment of contributors has never really been on the agenda, and probably never will be.

[sparkzilla]

[On Newslines] The fulfilment comes from the sense of achievement that derives from that [being paid], rather than the production of content in itself.

But on Newslines people are being paid AND making content, and they are happy to do so (I have a number of testimonials). What is the objective of any site? To create content, or to satisfy the egos of those taking part?

There are many ways to create similar content. The question here is 1) why are women less represented on Wikipedia and 2) how can that be fixed. Paying the contributors is part of our mix. The most important point is that the software and policies attract a certain kind of people. In the same way that Macs attract a certain group, and that some people like BMWs, the features of Wikipedia appeal to young white men. White men get fulfillment out of fighting to get their content on Wikipedia. Women and other groups, who are excluded from this contest, have had nowhere else to go. That doesn't mean women don't get fulfilled by adding content to a site, or that they must get paid to do it, just that they are excluded for Wikipedia.

You can't making the next Wikipedia the same way as the old one. Times change and new solutions are required. I pay our writers to speed up the site growth. IMHO, the age of people adding content to sites for free is drawing to a close, and strategies that were novel in the past may soon be seen as exploitative. I didn't expect the payment to attract women, but it's certainly an interesting development, and highlights many issues.

The flip side is that I believe that most Wikipedia editors would not be interested in working on a site like newslines because they think that getting paid is beneath them. They would rather work for months for free to get their piece of knowledge on Wikipedia than add it to our site and make some money. Some of this is the scale of the site, of course, but some people just like to fight. Most people don't know any better and think Wikipedia is the only way to make large-scale content.

So how to fix the problem? Well obviously paying writers is not an option for Wikipedia. Changing the data structure may help, but that's a huge job and given the ineptitude of Wikipedia's programming efforts, seems unlikely. A proper editorial framework would help too, but then it wouldn't be a wiki. So it's reasonable to predict that there will be a lot of meaningless initiatives and window dressing, but the core gender gap, as well as the multitude of other problems, will not, and cannot, be fixed.

[SB_Johnny]

A great post pointing out the problems with mistaking Wikipedia for a passable social media site. I'm not sure though that the issues brought up are specific to women: I find the same issues objectionable for the same reasons, and I'm not a woman. Angela Kennedy's comment on the blog is worth going back to read on this.

[EricBarbour]

Good post, looks almost like an academic essay.

This comment deserves to be addressed:

It would be nice to see the gender stats for blocked editors.

If someone would put together information on a random sample of blocked editors, I would analyze it. Problem being the sample, since editors tend to be anonymous. As long as no one is willing to talk on the record, such things will not be studied -- and Wikipedia will keep slowly sliding into the muck.

[HRIP7]

A great post pointing out the problems with mistaking Wikipedia for a passable social media site. I'm not sure though that the issues brought up are specific to women: I find the same issues objectionable for the same reasons, and I'm not a woman. Angela Kennedy's comment on the blog is worth going back to read on this.

I think it's all a matter of degrees, and bell curves. Angela definitely has a point about "policing" (apart from admins, think of hamfisted new-page patrollers etc.), and both men and women feel hurt when they are at the receiving end of it.

At the end of the day though, women and girls stay away from Wikipedia in droves, and are about 1/10th as likely to join as males. If girls' and women's engagement was on a level with boys' and men's, Wikipedia would practically double its community.

I really think it's not just because Wikipedia is unpleasant, but also because other sites online seem more meaningful, and more fun.

[Anthonyhcole]

Girls just want to have fun, eh? Mmm.

Excellent blog post. Very informative and very much appreciated.

[Anthonyhcole]

The root of this is that they get compliments and attention elsewhere. When on a website, spending time on a purported mission to give free data to the girl in Africa, if they believe such a thing, is almost the same as spending time to "groom" their own social profiles on websites, they do this to attract "likes" and attention in general.
They can't attract as much attention on Wikipedia as they do on other social sites.

I'm guessing you're not a woman.

[Textnyymi]

I'm guessing you're not a woman.

Correct.
Do you have a definition for "fun"?

What would women want out of contributing to Wikipedia?
What would men want out of contributing to Wikipedia?

[Hex]

I'm guessing you're not a woman.

That garbage earned him being put on ignore.

[Drowninginlimbo]

The root of this is that they get compliments and attention elsewhere. When on a website, spending time on a purported mission to give free data to the girl in Africa, if they believe such a thing, is almost the same as spending time to "groom" their own social profiles on websites, they do this to attract "likes" and attention in general.
They can't attract as much attention on Wikipedia as they do on other social sites.

I don't think the problem is that women are less interested in educating others. It is deeply stupid to suggest that women don't have any influence or interest within academia. You must have been taught by women right? This has not got anything to do with the intended purpose of the website as it being a source of free knowledge. I personally think it has much more to do with how the website is run.

When you have a website that does nothing about its sexist users then it is naturally going to drive away the people who experience that sexism. It’s the same with the other big website that operates with libertarian principles (clue: its name begins with an “R”). Nothing is done about it because users are told that they should always "assume good faith". I can say with "good faith" that there are lots of sexist people within the Wikipedia community.

Example from yesterday: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-0ZA4W0RRU

[Textnyymi]

When you have a website that does nothing about its sexist users then it is naturally going to drive away the people who experience that sexism. It’s the same with the other big website that operates with libertarian principles (clue: its name begins with an “R”). Nothing is done about it because users are told that they should always "assume good faith". I can say with "good faith" that there are lots of sexist people within the Wikipedia community.

All right.

But, do men and women have different reasons for contributing to the database?
And what are those reasons?

That garbage earned him being put on ignore.

Sorry, lad. I have a limited amount of information in my head about this, that's why I'm asking and trying to add more information.

[Midsize Jake]

But, do men and women have different reasons for contributing to the database?

Not really.

You'd have a better argument if you simply pointed out the core advantages other social-media sites have in attracting women, which is that they're not designed to foster the kinds of conflicts Wikipedia thrives on, and that their entire reward structures are based almost solely on quantifiable positive feedback (as you say, "likes" and "follows" and so on). There are disincentives to make personal attacks on people, whereas on Wikipedia it's precisely the opposite situation, and all they have to deal with that is a rule (WP:NPA) which isn't enforced very consistently, and sometimes not at all. Like the thread title says, most women just don't have time for that stuff, and that's true whether or not you can make the case that they're more easily put off by the shitty behavior of those around them than men are.

Also, for most of human existence, women have been an oppressed class - often forced to live in the shadows, earning less money than men for the same jobs, etc. That may be changing, but not soon enough to eliminate the basic suspicion many of them have that schemes like Wikipedia are just another way to exploit them.

[Cla68]

But, do men and women have different reasons for contributing to the database?

Also, for most of human existence, women have been an oppressed class - often forced to live in the shadows, earning less money than men for the same jobs, etc. That may be changing, but not soon enough to eliminate the basic suspicion many of them have that schemes like Wikipedia are just another way to exploit them.

Growing up in the US, I accepted the notion that women were an opprossed class. After living in Japan for awhile, a place that believes more in traditional gender roles, I found a different perspective. I was really surprised at how contemptuous most of the Japanese women I know were of Western-style feminism. When I explained it to them, as I understood it, I was taken aback by their disdain for most of its ideals. Obviously, Japanese women do feel oppressed in some ways, but the way they perceive it and their relationship with their society is different. There are, of course, Japanese women who believe or promote Western-style feminism.

Anyway, it could be that women in general astutely perceive Wikipedia as a baloney construct trying to exploit them. If so, then they are much more perceptive about it than the men are.

[Johnny Au]

How to edit Wikipedia articles:

For over one decade of Wikipedia's existence, editing Wikipedia articles is not directly WYSIWYG (aside from using the preview button) and requires knowing some coding known as Wiki-markup. Even with VE is it necessary to know Wiki-markup, as VE is very much broken.

Most other social media websites have WYSIWYG editing. Computer science is a traditionally male subject.

The blog also did not mention SoundCloud, which is popular with audiophiles who share music with each other. It is much easier to share an image than it is to share an audio file.

With regards to text-to-speech, it has a much easier time on Wikipedia than on social media websites (and feels much more natural too). Why? Given the constraints on Twitter, text-to-speech programs have significant difficulty with it.

The vast majority of the Internet is visual.

Yes, I know Wiki-markup very well (and I have some knowledge of computer science).

[HRIP7]

There has been some discussion of the post on the Gendergap list. I've revised a small portion of the post in light of that, and added a note at the end.

I've also asked Phoebe Ayers whether she has access to the gender data from the April 2012 editor survey, which I haven't seen reported anywhere to date.

[Anthonyhcole]

There has been some discussion of the post on the Gendergap list. I've revised a small portion of the post in light of that, and added a note at the end.

What a civil discussion and fine resolution.

[HRIP7]

Posted on Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/submission/3804605/ ... -wikipedia

[Textnyymi]

Growing up in the US, I accepted the notion that women were an opprossed class. After living in Japan for awhile, a place that believes more in traditional gender roles, I found a different perspective. I was really surprised at how contemptuous most of the Japanese women I know were of Western-style feminism. When I explained it to them, as I understood it, I was taken aback by their disdain for most of its ideals. Obviously, Japanese women do feel oppressed in some ways, but the way they perceive it and their relationship with their society is different. There are, of course, Japanese women who believe or promote Western-style feminism.

Anyway, it could be that women in general astutely perceive Wikipedia as a baloney construct trying to exploit them. If so, then they are much more perceptive about it than the men are.

Aren't all those fancy movements in USA predominantly class based, rather than "gender" or "race" based?

What is Wikipedia? What is Facebook? Both are entities formed partly by servers and data contained in those servers. The difference is mostly in the presentation of that content. One is presented as an "encyclopedia", the other is presented as a "social network". But how are they perceived by the users?

It's likely people somewhat know that Wikipedia is just a huge soapbox with pages that can be filled with random data, and Facebook is a general container which is there to harvest, collect, and mine data for various advertising purposes. They just choose to ignore what they know.

If you were to ask your friends, males and females, about Facebook harvesting data, and Wikipedia being a container for random semi-accurate and semi-inaccurate data, what would the most likely responses be?

[Johnny Au]

Wikipedia has banners that keeps telling people to donate to them. Facebook has money pits disguised as "games."

[HRIP7]

Posted on Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/submission/3804605/ ... -wikipedia

Now here:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/08/28 ... -wikipedia

186 300 comments to date. The wisdom of the crowd in action!

[Mancunium]

This text seems somewhat familiar:

Wikipedia crippled by a lack of women
Edited by boys who know nothing
by Nick Farrell, Fudzilla, 29 August 2014 linkhttp://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/35632 ... k-of-women[/link]

Wikipedia’s problem is finally being realised, it teams of editors are “young white western males with a slight personality defect” and there are simply not enough women working at the place. Guardian feature writer Anne Perkins said that Wikipedia’s editors are single and childless and most of them are actually small boys who are getting bullied at school. A recent survey of Wikipedians showed that the average age of them 25.22 years, young enough to know nothing but old enough to think they are gods gift to intellect. Half of the respondents are younger than 22 years. The most frequent age that can be observed within the respondents is 18 years. So that means a quarter of them are younger than 18 years old and another quarter are between 18 and 22, a further 25 quarter are between 22 and 30. Only the last quarter are between the ages of 30 and 85 years old which is the age you actually know anything. Contributors show a substantially larger share of males than readers. Among respondents only 12.64 per cent of contributors are female. Wikipedia acknowledges that it suffers from a lack of women editors however it has been unable to do anything about it and in 2013 any attempt within Wikipedia was abandoned. As a result

[ ... female porn stars vs women writers ...]

However it is not an issue about women and technology. Women have come to outnumber men in some social media domains. They use social network sites such as Facebook more often and more actively than men and female users predominate on Twitter, Yelp, and the online pinboard Pinterest. Men hang out in Reddit, a social news website known for its sometimes-misogynistic content and LinkedIn has attracted almost twice as many males as females. LinkedIn claims that this is because men are better at professional networking than women. What is more likely is that women do not hang out in places where there are a higher percentage of men being misogynistic socially retarded tossers – which is why they ignore Wikipedia in droves.

I am a man, and I do not hang out in Reddit.

Also: I am aged between 30 and 85, and I do not actually know anything.

[Textnyymi]

What are the most misogynist and most misandrist areas of Wikipedia and Reddit?

[Zoloft]

Posted on Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/submission/3804605/ ... -wikipedia

Now here:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/08/28 ... -wikipedia

186 300 comments to date. The wisdom of the crowd in action!

Congratulations on stirring up so much interest.

[EricBarbour]

Now here:
http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/08/28 ... -wikipedia

Damn, there's that "Karmashock" asshole again. He (and that's just got to be a "he") talks exactly like a policy-quoting, banhammering Wikipedia admin. He's already posted a score of snotty put-downs of others on that thread.

Its not bias against women. its women choosing not to participate. End of argument.

Until women are willing to take up these jobs in equal numbers I really have zero patience for their equality crap. They have equality already. They just don't have equal interest or in many cases ability. Deal with it. We're not all the same. Stop whining about it.

[sparkzilla]

Damn, last I checked there was no comments, now it's full. Better get my 2 cents in...

[Versus]

the site is dominated by “young white western males with a slight personality defect”.

The problem is not so much the "young" ones, it's the middle-aged ones that are still behaving like they're teenagers.

[HRIP7]

Posted on Slashdot: http://slashdot.org/submission/3804605/ ... -wikipedia

Now here:

http://news.slashdot.org/story/14/08/28 ... -wikipedia

186 300 comments to date. The wisdom of the crowd in action!

Congratulations on stirring up so much interest.

Thanks. Comments are now up to 500, and it's currently in third place in Slashdot's "Most discussed" panel. Top is the Sarkeesian story, with 1,176 comments. (Of course, as is well known, not everyone who comments on Slashdot actually reads TFA.)

[Tippi Hadron]

Thank you for your kind words, Tim, DiL, tarantino and others. Andreas composed that blog post all by himself. You all know what an outstanding writer he is, and some of you even know how much fun he is to work with. I only contributed some research and ideas as well as two hours of copy-editing. Oh, and the headline. I’m somewhat proud of that headline. It bears remembering that what Andreas came up with are indeed thoughts on WP’s gender imbalance, as opposed to the last word on why Wikipedia is so unattractive to women.

I agree with most of Andreas’ findings, but I am also aware that there are women on Wikipedia who do not mind its ugly, dated design and clunky editing software and are trying their best to navigate a culture that allows its defenders to hide behind pseudonyms while adding biased information and tabloid-style gossip to people’s Wikipedia biographies. This culture is what I find most offensive about the site. It turned “The Project” into a magnet for some of the worst people on the Internet. And WP’s lack of female participants makes pretending to be a woman a tempting proposition for sociopathic males of all ages, given that it enables them to capitalize on their status as members of a minority. Remember when failed writer and butcher of Wikipedia biographies Robert Clark Young aka Qworty claimed he was a woman and made up lies about having received death threats as a result of his disgusting attacks on Amanda Filipacchi, an accomplished, empathic writer who dared criticize Wikipedia’s inherent sexism? It worked a treat, too.

The manner in which Wikipedia’s high and mighty dealt with Robert Clark Young before and after he was exposed as a lying, vengeful little excuse for a man brings me to the second reason for my dislike of Wikipedia: the site’s power players are reluctant to admit mistakes. If and when they do, more often than not, it is as a result of negative reports in the media, and they will simultaneously do their best to slant things in their favour on Wikipedia, both in “article space” and on the culprits’ personal Wikipedia user pages. On 28 April 2013, Wikipedia arbitrator Newyorkbrad left a very polite note on Qworty’s talk page, from one Wikipedia insider to another. Once it became clear that Salon’s Andrew Leonard was about to publish a major exposé about Qworty, Newyorkbrad quickly posted a very different message that looked a lot like an attempt at damage control, telling this Wikipedia editor in good standing that he should no longer edit biographical articles concerning any living person. In what must surely have been a coincidence, this happened just two hours after Leonard had asked Jimbo Wales for a statement on the affair. Robert Clark Young’s Wikipedia user page and talk page were subsequently blanked “as a courtesy”, which of course had nothing at all to do with Wikipedians making it harder for journalists and readers unfamiliar with the site’s View History function to find out more about Mr Young’s activities. Compare that to the treatment of equally unsavoury Wikipedia editor ColonelHenry, whose story was not picked up by the international media. To this day, his user page sports the classic “badge of shame”, i.e. a template that marks him as a banned editor.

But the hypocrisy runs deeper. I for one am amused by the fact that the current and previous Executive Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation are women, given the site’s demographics. And while Sue Gardner was wishy-washy vocal in blaming Wikipedia’s shortcomings on its overwhelmingly male user base, she herself was anything but a regular editor and more often than not failed to interact with the few women on the site. Then again, she excelled at bringing in donor money – and at spending it on hiring established Wikipedia users rather than seasoned professionals. She even wasted a staggering $195,000 to finance a campaign of promotional videos that look like they’ve been shot by an amateur. The Edit Button video is remarkable in that it features three men and five women. The one titled Nice People is hilarious for a different reason. Hi Jimbo!

That said, I am sure that you, like me, have come across the odd Wikipedia contributor you’ve admired for their erudition, their writing chops and their integrity. Jayen466 aka our own HRIP7 is one of them. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah is another. There are others. Most of the ones I can think of are male. Most of the female WP contributors I like best are fellow critics, like Alison, The Adversary and Bielle. I also have a huge soft spot for SlimVirgin. That lady can write, and her work on gender-specific topics seems motivated by genuine altruism, unlike that of someone like Sarah Stierch who couldn’t write her way out of a wet paper bag but used WP as a tool to advance her career and travel the world. One of her cronies at the Ada Initiative even wrote a flattering WP biography for her. A biography that was deleted shortly after it came to light that she edited Wikipedia for pay while being employed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Stierch is still a WP power player. Despite her tainted reputation, she was on the organizing committee for this year’s Wikimania.

Wikipedia is definitely doing a good job at helping mediocre female players rise to Internet prominence. Should I, as a woman, feel bad about pointing this out? Some of the commenters in the Slashdot thread mentioned that women can be as petty as men if not worse. I wholeheartedly agree. Have a look at the contributions to our site by one disgruntled female Wikipedian who, as far as I’m concerned, was given far too much leeway on here to attack another female Wikipedian. The nastiness is strong in that one. And her case is a good example of why attracting more women to Wikipedia will not solve its problems. Pretending that women are better than men when it comes to social interactions is a fallacy indeed. Unpleasant people will be unpleasant, regardless of their gender.

Since the founding of WO in March 2012, we have provided journalists with research and leads for over 100 press reports about Wikipedia’s failings. To me, educating the public about what goes on behind the scenes and making the site fade into insignificance is the only way forward. Wikipedia has hurt too many people, male and female alike, to be allowed to come up as the top Google result for “notable” people’s names.

[Zoloft]

Thank you for your kind words, Tim, DiL, tarantino and others. Andreas composed that blog post all by himself. You all know what an outstanding writer he is, and some of you even know how much fun he is to work with. I only contributed some research and ideas as well as two hours of copy-editing. Oh, and the headline. I’m somewhat proud of that headline. It bears remembering that what Andreas came up with are indeed thoughts on WP’s gender imbalance, as opposed to the last word on why Wikipedia is so unattractive to women.

I agree with most of Andreas’ findings, but I am also aware that there are women on Wikipedia who do not mind its ugly, dated design and clunky editing software and are trying their best to navigate a culture that allows its defenders to hide behind pseudonyms while adding biased information and tabloid-style gossip to people’s Wikipedia biographies. This culture is what I find most offensive about the site. It turned “The Project” into a magnet for some of the worst people on the Internet. And WP’s lack of female participants makes pretending to be a woman a tempting proposition for sociopathic males of all ages, given that it enables them to capitalize on their status as members of a minority. Remember when failed writer and butcher of Wikipedia biographies Robert Clark Young aka Qworty claimed he was a woman and made up lies about having received death threats as a result of his disgusting attacks on Amanda Filipacchi, an accomplished, empathic writer who dared criticize Wikipedia’s inherent sexism? It worked a treat, too.

The manner in which Wikipedia’s high and mighty dealt with Robert Clark Young before and after he was exposed as a lying, vengeful little excuse for a man brings me to the second reason for my dislike of Wikipedia: the site’s power players are reluctant to admit mistakes. If and when they do, more often than not, it is as a result of negative reports in the media, and they will simultaneously do their best to slant things in their favour on Wikipedia, both in “article space” and on the culprits’ personal Wikipedia user pages. On 28 April 2013, Wikipedia arbitrator Newyorkbrad left a very polite note on Qworty’s talk page, from one Wikipedia insider to another. Once it became clear that Salon’s Andrew Leonard was about to publish a major exposé about Qworty, Newyorkbrad quickly posted a very different message that looked a lot like an attempt at damage control, telling this Wikipedia editor in good standing that he should no longer edit biographical articles concerning any living person. In what must surely have been a coincidence, this happened just two hours after Leonard had asked Jimbo Wales for a statement on the affair. Robert Clark Young’s Wikipedia user page and talk page were subsequently blanked “as a courtesy”, which of course had nothing at all to do with Wikipedians making it harder for journalists and readers unfamiliar with the site’s View History function to find out more about Mr Young’s activities. Compare that to the treatment of equally unsavoury Wikipedia editor ColonelHenry, whose story was not picked up by the international media. To this day, his user page sports the classic “badge of shame”, i.e. a template that marks him as a banned editor.

But the hypocrisy runs deeper. I for one am amused by the fact that the current and previous Executive Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation are women, given the site’s demographics. And while Sue Gardner was wishy-washy vocal in blaming Wikipedia’s shortcomings on its overwhelmingly male user base, she herself was anything but a regular editor and more often than not failed to interact with the few women on the site. Then again, she excelled at bringing in donor money – and at spending it on hiring established Wikipedia users rather than seasoned professionals. She even wasted a staggering $195,000 to finance a campaign of promotional videos that look like they’ve been shot by an amateur. The Edit Button video is remarkable in that it features three men and five women. The one titled Nice People is hilarious for a different reason. Hi Jimbo!

That said, I am sure that you, like me, have come across the odd Wikipedia contributor you’ve admired for their erudition, their writing chops and their integrity. Jayen466 aka our own HRIP7 is one of them. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah is another. There are others. Most of the ones I can think of are male. Most of the female WP contributors I like best are fellow critics, like Alison, The Adversary and Bielle. I also have a huge soft spot for SlimVirgin. That lady can write, and her work on gender-specific topics seems motivated by genuine altruism, unlike that of someone like Sarah Stierch who couldn’t write her way out of a wet paper bag but used WP as a tool to advance her career and travel the world. One of her cronies from the Ada Initiative even wrote a flattering WP biography for her. A biography that was deleted shortly after it came to light that she edited Wikipedia for pay while being employed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Stierch is still a WP power player. Despite her tainted reputation, she was on the organizing committee for this year’s Wikimania.

Wikipedia is definitely doing a good job at helping mediocre female players rise to Internet prominence. Should I, as a woman, feel bad about pointing this out? Some of the commenters in the Slashdot thread mentioned that women can be as petty as men if not worse. I wholeheartedly agree. Have a look at the contributions to our site by one disgruntled female Wikipedian who, as far as I’m concerned, was given far too much leeway on here to attack another female Wikipedian. The nastiness is strong in that one. And her case is a good example of why attracting more women to Wikipedia will not solve its problems. Pretending that women are better than men when it comes to social interactions is a fallacy indeed. Unpleasant people will be unpleasant, regardless of their gender.

Since the founding of WO in March 2012, we have provided journalists with research and leads for over 100 press reports about Wikipedia’s failings. To me, educating the public about what goes on behind the scenes and making the site fade into insignificance are the only way forward. Wikipedia has hurt too many people, male and female alike, to be allowed to come up as the top Google result for “notable” people’s names.

That is a great and different angle on women in Wikipedia, and mentioning the Ada Initiative is interesting. There have been some real sneaky power moves by that group. I wonder if we could get a guest blog post from Violet Blue on the dark side of rising women at Wikipedia? She had a severe dust-up with the Ada Initiative folks not too long ago.

Both you and Andrea's wonderful work in promoting and providing sparkling content for Wikipediocracy are appreciated.

[Cla68]

Thank you for your kind words, Tim, DiL, tarantino and others. Andreas composed that blog post all by himself. You all know what an outstanding writer he is, and some of you even know how much fun he is to work with. I only contributed some research and ideas as well as two hours of copy-editing. Oh, and the headline. I’m somewhat proud of that headline. It bears remembering that what Andreas came up with are indeed thoughts on WP’s gender imbalance, as opposed to the last word on why Wikipedia is so unattractive to women.

I agree with most of Andreas’ findings, but I am also aware that there are women on Wikipedia who do not mind its ugly, dated design and clunky editing software and are trying their best to navigate a culture that allows its defenders to hide behind pseudonyms while adding biased information and tabloid-style gossip to people’s Wikipedia biographies. This culture is what I find most offensive about the site. It turned “The Project” into a magnet for some of the worst people on the Internet. And WP’s lack of female participants makes pretending to be a woman a tempting proposition for sociopathic males of all ages, given that it enables them to capitalize on their status as members of a minority. Remember when failed writer and butcher of Wikipedia biographies Robert Clark Young aka Qworty claimed he was a woman and made up lies about having received death threats as a result of his disgusting attacks on Amanda Filipacchi, an accomplished, empathic writer who dared criticize Wikipedia’s inherent sexism? It worked a treat, too.

The manner in which Wikipedia’s high and mighty dealt with Robert Clark Young before and after he was exposed as a lying, vengeful little excuse for a man brings me to the second reason for my dislike of Wikipedia: the site’s power players are reluctant to admit mistakes. If and when they do, more often than not, it is as a result of negative reports in the media, and they will simultaneously do their best to slant things in their favour on Wikipedia, both in “article space” and on the culprits’ personal Wikipedia user pages. On 28 April 2013, Wikipedia arbitrator Newyorkbrad left a very polite note on Qworty’s talk page, from one Wikipedia insider to another. Once it became clear that Salon’s Andrew Leonard was about to publish a major exposé about Qworty, Newyorkbrad quickly posted a very different message that looked a lot like an attempt at damage control, telling this Wikipedia editor in good standing that he should no longer edit biographical articles concerning any living person. In what must surely have been a coincidence, this happened just two hours after Leonard had asked Jimbo Wales for a statement on the affair. Robert Clark Young’s Wikipedia user page and talk page were subsequently blanked “as a courtesy”, which of course had nothing at all to do with Wikipedians making it harder for journalists and readers unfamiliar with the site’s View History function to find out more about Mr Young’s activities. Compare that to the treatment of equally unsavoury Wikipedia editor ColonelHenry, whose story was not picked up by the international media. To this day, his user page sports the classic “badge of shame”, i.e. a template that marks him as a banned editor.

But the hypocrisy runs deeper. I for one am amused by the fact that the current and previous Executive Directors of the Wikimedia Foundation are women, given the site’s demographics. And while Sue Gardner was wishy-washy vocal in blaming Wikipedia’s shortcomings on its overwhelmingly male user base, she herself was anything but a regular editor and more often than not failed to interact with the few women on the site. Then again, she excelled at bringing in donor money – and at spending it on hiring established Wikipedia users rather than seasoned professionals. She even wasted a staggering $195,000 to finance a campaign of promotional videos that look like they’ve been shot by an amateur. The Edit Button video is remarkable in that it features three men and five women. The one titled Nice People is hilarious for a different reason. Hi Jimbo!

That said, I am sure that you, like me, have come across the odd Wikipedia contributor you’ve admired for their erudition, their writing chops and their integrity. Jayen466 aka our own HRIP7 is one of them. Alf.laylah.wa.laylah is another. There are others. Most of the ones I can think of are male. Most of the female WP contributors I like best are fellow critics, like Alison, The Adversary and Bielle. I also have a huge soft spot for SlimVirgin. That lady can write, and her work on gender-specific topics seems motivated by genuine altruism, unlike that of someone like Sarah Stierch who couldn’t write her way out of a wet paper bag but used WP as a tool to advance her career and travel the world. One of her cronies at the Ada Initiative even wrote a flattering WP biography for her. A biography that was deleted shortly after it came to light that she edited Wikipedia for pay while being employed by the Wikimedia Foundation. Stierch is still a WP power player. Despite her tainted reputation, she was on the organizing committee for this year’s Wikimania.

Wikipedia is definitely doing a good job at helping mediocre female players rise to Internet prominence. Should I, as a woman, feel bad about pointing this out? Some of the commenters in the Slashdot thread mentioned that women can be as petty as men if not worse. I wholeheartedly agree. Have a look at the contributions to our site by one disgruntled female Wikipedian who, as far as I’m concerned, was given far too much leeway on here to attack another female Wikipedian. The nastiness is strong in that one. And her case is a good example of why attracting more women to Wikipedia will not solve its problems. Pretending that women are better than men when it comes to social interactions is a fallacy indeed. Unpleasant people will be unpleasant, regardless of their gender.

Since the founding of WO in March 2012, we have provided journalists with research and leads for over 100 press reports about Wikipedia’s failings. To me, educating the public about what goes on behind the scenes and making the site fade into insignificance is the only way forward. Wikipedia has hurt too many people, male and female alike, to be allowed to come up as the top Google result for “notable” people’s names.

I should have said, great blog post Andreas, because it really is. This addendum by Tippi is blog-post-worthy, IMO.

This is a topic for another thread, but I think SlimVirgin is probably the most interesting and compelling tale of Wikipedia, by far. She is a brilliant writer and researcher whose efforts likely really helped Wikipedia take off, but she is also one of the main reasons why Wikipedia will ultimately fail. Any book on the WP saga should feature her as the main character, both as protagonist and antagonist.

[EricBarbour]

This is a topic for another thread, but I think SlimVirgin is probably the most interesting and compelling tale of Wikipedia, by far. She is a brilliant writer and researcher whose efforts likely really helped Wikipedia take off, but she is also one of the main reasons why Wikipedia will ultimately fail. Any book on the WP saga should feature her as the main character, both as protagonist and antagonist.

More-or-less true, although there are undoubtedly a few crazier stories that no one but the insiders are privy to.

[Cla68]

This is a topic for another thread, but I think SlimVirgin is probably the most interesting and compelling tale of Wikipedia, by far. She is a brilliant writer and researcher whose efforts likely really helped Wikipedia take off, but she is also one of the main reasons why Wikipedia will ultimately fail. Any book on the WP saga should feature her as the main character, both as protagonist and antagonist.

More-or-less true, although there are undoubtedly a few crazier stories that no one but the insiders are privy to.

If we start a separate thread on her, I will, of course, defend my opinion.

By the way, it's saturday morning time in the US. You guys need to get out of the house and do something with your labor day weekend.

[HRIP7]

I've also asked Phoebe Ayers whether she has access to the gender data from the April 2012 editor survey, which I haven't seen reported anywhere to date.

It's now been two days since I asked the question. (I should have said "July–November 2012 editor survey", but have the fond hope that it was clear from the links I added exactly which survey was meant.)

I haven't had a reply. Combined with Sue Gardner's statement at Wikimania 2013, "I didn't solve it. We didn't solve it. The Wikimedia Foundation didn't solve it. The solution won't come from the Wikimedia Foundation." – which sounds quite demoralised – I'm beginning to wonder whether the gender stats in that survey were so dismal that they simply buried the survey, deciding to release the results years later when no one would care any more.

Sue Gardner announced her desire to leave the Wikimedia Foundation in early 2013.

Before someone accuses me of being a conspiracy theorist, I said "I'm beginning to wonder", not "this is probably what happened". I don't know that; I'm totally open to the possibility that my wondering is quite misguided, that there were quite unrelated reasons why the survey results were not published, that Sue Gardner's leaving was entirely unrelated to the failure of her gender gap effort, and would be happy to hear that the 2012 survey's female contributor percentage was in fact better than the 8.5% reported in the 2011 survey, and had not dropped further.

But it would, sort of, be nice to know one way or the other, and surely someone should know the figures by now, given that almost two years have passed since the survey was run.

[HRIP7]

A couple of people asked in the comments whether women were more or less likely to be blocked than men. This is a question that was examined in the 2011 paper, WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender Imbalance, which found that women were significantly (p < 0.001) more likely to be indefinitely blocked than men (3.85% vs. 3.32%).

The study also found that women were no more likely to quit when reverted than men. However, women's edits were significantly more likely to be reverted. This applied in particular to women's early edits.

Another counterintuitive finding was that women were more likely to be involved in contentious articles than men (bear in mind that the contentiousness may well have been a direct result of women's involvement ...).

[Randy from Boise]

A couple of people asked in the comments whether women were more or less likely to be blocked than men. This is a question that was examined in the 2011 paper, WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender Imbalance, which found that women were significantly (p < 0.001) more likely to be indefinitely blocked than men (3.85% vs. 3.32%).

The study also found that women were no more likely to quit when reverted than men. However, women's edits were significantly more likely to be reverted. This applied in particular to women's early edits.

Another counterintuitive finding was that women were more likely to be involved in contentious articles than men (bear in mind that the contentiousness may well have been a direct result of women's involvement ...).

Then again, if there is a gender-related trend towards involvement in contentious topics, that would explain a statistically significantly higher level of reversion and indef blocks for women. Cause and effect...

I do find the premise that women are more likely to be involved in contentious articles to be counterintuitive...

RfB

[HRIP7]

I do find the premise that women are more likely to be involved in contentious articles to be counterintuitive...

RfB

I agree. The authors expressed surprise about that too. Their hypothesis was, Females tend to avoid controversial or contentious articles. Yet they ...

found that 5.20% of the "female" articles described in section 4.2 are protected, while just 2.39% of the "male" articles are protected [...], p < 0.001. Thus, articles that have a higher concentration of female editorship are actually more likely to be contentious than those with more males.

Hence my suggestion that an influx of female editors may actually lead to these articles becoming contentious. It could be a sign of male editors actively working to shut out female perspectives.

To me this seems quite plausible. I recall women editors from edit-a-thons complaining that articles on notable women they created were immediately nominated for deletion (by men). Men on the whole feel Wikipedia is their territory, and interlopers are punished. While putting it like that may be a little stark, there is a palpable element of that among some contributors.

[HRIP7]

Another very recently (20 August 2014) published paper:

Daniela Iosub, David Laniado, Carlos Castillo, Mayo Fuster Morell, Andreas Kaltenbrunner: Emotions under Discussion: Gender, Status and Communication in Online Collaboration

Principal Findings

We find that administrators maintain a rather neutral, impersonal tone, while regular editors are more emotional and relationship-oriented, that is, they use language to form and maintain connections to other editors. A persistent gender difference is that female contributors communicate in a manner that promotes social affiliation and emotional connection more than male editors, irrespective of their status in the community. Female regular editors are the most relationship-oriented, whereas male administrators are the least relationship-focused. Finally, emotional and linguistic homophily is prevalent: editors tend to interact with other editors having similar emotional styles (e.g., editors expressing more anger connect more with one another).

[EricBarbour]

Another very recently (20 August 2014) published paper:

Daniela Iosub, David Laniado, Carlos Castillo, Mayo Fuster Morell, Andreas Kaltenbrunner: Emotions under Discussion: Gender, Status and Communication in Online Collaboration

And not a word about whether any of this "social affiliation" leads to a better reference work or not. Most of it hurts Wikipedia, I expect. Especially if would-be editors are not contributing because of the aggressive and oft-hateful "social affiliation".

[HRIP7]

Another very recently (20 August 2014) published paper:

Daniela Iosub, David Laniado, Carlos Castillo, Mayo Fuster Morell, Andreas Kaltenbrunner: Emotions under Discussion: Gender, Status and Communication in Online Collaboration

And not a word about whether any of this "social affiliation" leads to a better reference work or not. Most of it hurts Wikipedia, I expect. Especially if would-be editors are not contributing because of the aggressive and oft-hateful "social affiliation".

To me it's quite clear that a whole host of problems that we criticise here are due to the Clubhouse atmosphere, from vindictive biographies to pompous administrators to "not censored" excesses. A healthier gender balance might go some way towards fixing them, and at least provide basic conditions for a more sensible modus operandi might develop.

But yes, even then Wikipedia would have a long way to go.