Where are the women on the Spanish-language Wikipedia site?

[Poetlister]

With its more than 40 million articles in 301 different languages, Wikipedia is one of the largest human collaboration efforts in history. One of the main pillars on which this wish to bring together the sum of all knowledge is based is the achievement of a neutral space. However, several studies suggest that the site suffers from a persistent gender bias as regards both content and the composition of its community. An analysis of the gender gap in the Spanish-language version of Wikipedia by an interdisciplinary team at the UOC has revealed that only 11.6% of its registered editors are women.

According to the new study, which has been published in the journal PLOS ONE, the difference could be partially due to female editors being less persistent. "Women edit less and give up sooner. This is part of the reason the gap is not narrowing," note the authors. In spite of this, the results reveal a small group of veteran female editors, some of whom have edited more than men, a fact that could help design measures to highlight and increase women's participation in this space.

eurekalert.org

While this study relates to the Spanish site, I'm sure that it's not wildly different on the English one.

[Randy from Boise]

At some point, people just need to recognize that the editing pool at WP is 85% male, for a variety of sociological reasons, and to accept that and get serious about CONTENT deficiencies.

This is 20x more important than whether an editor pees standing up or sitting down.

t

[Ada Sinn]

At some point, people just need to recognize that the editing pool at WP is 85% male, for a variety of sociological reasons, and to accept that and get serious about CONTENT deficiencies.

This is 20x more important than whether an editor pees standing up or sitting down.

t

[AngelOne]

At some point, people just need to recognize that the editing pool at WP is 85% male, for a variety of sociological reasons, and to accept that and get serious about CONTENT deficiencies.

This is 20x more important than whether an editor pees standing up or sitting down.

t

You don't see a connection between editor demographic and content deficiencies?

To me it makes sense that content is going to reflect editor interests, which in turn reflect editor demographics. Therefore the encyclopedia you get from a user base that's 85% male will have different content than one that has a lower proportion of males.

If you can't make your 85% males be interested in other topics to address those content deficiencies, you need to get non-males interested in editing.

However, if you want to accept that the encyclopedia will always be written mostly by males, you also need to accept that there will be content deficiencies.

[Poetlister]

One of the biggest sources of bias in Wikipedia is the articles that aren't there or are only very short and poor. All sorts of demographics are under-represented, and increasing their participation would almost certainly lessen this bias because of their different interests. People whose first language is not English are a good example; they may participate in other Wikipedias but not the English one. (Of course, then there is the problem that their written English is poor, but that will be fixed by other editors, won't it?)

[iii]

It's clear that Wikipedia and its culture in practice acts exactly the way Randy in Boise suggests they should act. Of course, this kind of shrug and bear it behavior is precisely what enables the proliferation of sexism. It's not like there aren't hundreds or thousands of well-researched sociological papers on this subject, many of which identify solutions and none of which are "eh, just move on".

[Giraffe Stapler]

At some point, people just need to recognize that the editing pool at WP is 85% male, for a variety of sociological reasons, and to accept that and get serious about CONTENT deficiencies.

This is 20x more important than whether an editor pees standing up or sitting down.

t

You don't see a connection between editor demographic and content deficiencies?

To me it makes sense that content is going to reflect editor interests, which in turn reflect editor demographics. Therefore the encyclopedia you get from a user base that's 85% male will have different content than one that has a lower proportion of males.

If you can't make your 85% males be interested in other topics to address those content deficiencies, you need to get non-males interested in editing.

However, if you want to accept that the encyclopedia will always be written mostly by males, you also need to accept that there will be content deficiencies.

I've always felt like the "men and women are interested in different topics" thing was a terrible oversimplification of the problem. While probably true to some extent, the real issue for me is that Wikipedia is written from a male point of view. And largely a white North American male point of view. (Feel free to add in your fav qualifiers.)

Without even looking, I'm going to guess that Wikipedia's article on Beyoncé (T-H-L) is owned by some dude. (And now that I have looked, it's maybe not a great example.) Look at Taylor Swift (T-H-L) - a full 25% of the article has been written by one (male) editor, FrB.TG (T-C-L). That same dude has also written just over 25% of the Lady Gaga article.

There have been blog posts here on the problems with men editing on "women's subjects" like bras. It's not just subject matter, it's representation.

[AngelOne]

At some point, people just need to recognize that the editing pool at WP is 85% male, for a variety of sociological reasons, and to accept that and get serious about CONTENT deficiencies.

This is 20x more important than whether an editor pees standing up or sitting down.

t

You don't see a connection between editor demographic and content deficiencies?

To me it makes sense that content is going to reflect editor interests, which in turn reflect editor demographics. Therefore the encyclopedia you get from a user base that's 85% male will have different content than one that has a lower proportion of males.

If you can't make your 85% males be interested in other topics to address those content deficiencies, you need to get non-males interested in editing.

However, if you want to accept that the encyclopedia will always be written mostly by males, you also need to accept that there will be content deficiencies.

I've always felt like the "men and women are interested in different topics" thing was a terrible oversimplification of the problem. While probably true to some extent, the real issue for me is that Wikipedia is written from a male point of view. And largely a white North American male point of view. (Feel free to add in your fav qualifiers.)

Without even looking, I'm going to guess that Wikipedia's article on Beyoncé (T-H-L) is owned by some dude. (And now that I have looked, it's maybe not a great example.) Look at Taylor Swift (T-H-L) - a full 25% of the article has been written by one (male) editor, FrB.TG (T-C-L). That same dude has also written just over 25% of the Lady Gaga article.

There have been blog posts here on the problems with men editing on "women's subjects" like bras. It's not just subject matter, it's representation.

Thank you, that's a better summary of the consequences of editors being 85% male.

I do think some of those consequences are related to subject interests in that people write about what's interesting to them. That accounts for not having some content in some areas. However, you're right that editors being heavily skewed towards males affects the point of view of content and representation of content (and whether new content is written) which has a greater bearing on the completeness of that content.

[Randy from Boise]

You don't see a connection between editor demographic and content deficiencies?

I see multiple sources of systemic content deficiency, gender-related content far less an issue than the divide between global north and global south.

But the way to fix broken content is not by pouring millions of dollars and thousands of hours of effort into (essentially fruitless) recruitment of new editors from underrepresented demographic groups, the way to fix it is by taking a "Women in Red" approach in multiple other areas of the encyclopedia.

Fix content by fixing content, not by "fixing" editor balance.

If you can't make your 85% males be interested in other topics to address those content deficiencies, you need to get non-males interested in editing.

I don't see a lack of effort to overcome gender-related shortcomings of content.

However, if you want to accept that the encyclopedia will always be written mostly by males, you also need to accept that there will be content deficiencies.

There will always be content deficiencies, period, end of statement. If WP editors were 90% female, there would still be content deficiencies, because those 90% would be upper middle class, middle-ageish and aging, college educated, from the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia.

t

[watis]

Of course, then there is the problem that their written English is poor, but that will be fixed by other editors, won't it?

Interesting to see eventualism espoused on WPO. The soi-disant underrepresentation of the global south is another issue I've been thinking about lately. Wikipedia has many, many, many articles about non-Western topics, particularly South Asian. Those articles are not known for their unimpeachable notability or deathless prose. To a significant degree, there's an entire mirror-universe enwiki made up of these articles, which almost never get improved to an Anglophone encyclopedic standard because the people who are capable of doing so have no interest.

It's a difficult topic to handle. I've done significant work on some such articles (including one that, now I think of it, would be right up Carrite's alley). Not all of them will run into a team of people who happen to decide they want to edit about a random Indian television show instead of their usual fields. There are 3000-5000 active Wikipedia editors and six million articles; there's only so much you can do.

[Lightbreather]

It's clear that Wikipedia and its culture in practice acts exactly the way Randy in Boise suggests they should act. Of course, this kind of shrug and bear it behavior is precisely what enables the proliferation of sexism. It's not like there aren't hundreds or thousands of well-researched sociological papers on this subject, many of which identify solutions and none of which are "eh, just move on".

+1000

[Poetlister]

Of course, then there is the problem that their written English is poor, but that will be fixed by other editors, won't it?

Interesting to see eventualism espoused on WPO. The soi-disant underrepresentation of the global south is another issue I've been thinking about lately. Wikipedia has many, many, many articles about non-Western topics, particularly South Asian. Those articles are not known for their unimpeachable notability or deathless prose. To a significant degree, there's an entire mirror-universe enwiki made up of these articles, which almost never get improved to an Anglophone encyclopedic standard because the people who are capable of doing so have no interest.

It's a difficult topic to handle. I've done significant work on some such articles (including one that, now I think of it, would be right up Carrite's alley). Not all of them will run into a team of people who happen to decide they want to edit about a random Indian television show instead of their usual fields. There are 3000-5000 active Wikipedia editors and six million articles; there's only so much you can do.

I really must remember to use the smiley every time I use sarcasm. Of course, we all know that many poorly written articles may never be converted to deathless prose.

[Ada Sinn]

Commenting as a non-Anglosaxon, non-English native speaker. Of course there is a gender gap on Wikipedia, but it's not the only gap there. Personally I see the largest gaps in cleavages of developed countries vs. undeveloped countries and Anglosaxon vs. the others. While we have articles on NAACP secretaries or mayors of small U.S. towns, we lack articles on government ministers of majority of the countries around the world.

Same goes for geography. We have covered most of the small brooks and creeks on English countryside, while at the same time missing 400 km-long rivers in Russia, Africa and South America.

How do we address it then? I believe it doesn't make sense to encourage people from, say, Mozambique to edit Wikipedia. Wikipedia's goal should be to encourage others to edit articles about Mozambique, even though it's out of their "comfort zone".

[watis]

Of course, then there is the problem that their written English is poor, but that will be fixed by other editors, won't it?

Interesting to see eventualism espoused on WPO. The soi-disant underrepresentation of the global south is another issue I've been thinking about lately. Wikipedia has many, many, many articles about non-Western topics, particularly South Asian. Those articles are not known for their unimpeachable notability or deathless prose. To a significant degree, there's an entire mirror-universe enwiki made up of these articles, which almost never get improved to an Anglophone encyclopedic standard because the people who are capable of doing so have no interest.

It's a difficult topic to handle. I've done significant work on some such articles (including one that, now I think of it, would be right up Carrite's alley). Not all of them will run into a team of people who happen to decide they want to edit about a random Indian television show instead of their usual fields. There are 3000-5000 active Wikipedia editors and six million articles; there's only so much you can do.

I really must remember to use the smiley every time I use sarcasm. Of course, we all know that many poorly written articles may never be converted to deathless prose.

I suspected there was a ring of sarcasm, but I had a rant all bottled up and waiting to go. It's a messy topic that no one really wants to admit the full scope of. To a lesser degree, African (especially Nigerian) articles are emerging with similar issues.