Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Wikipedia vs. Women

By Annalee Newitz, AlterNet. Posted December 19, 2006.


WikiChix was recently formed by women contributors sick of how male-dominated Wikipedia has become. The question their move raises is as old as feminism itself.
Annalee Newitz

Share and save this post:
Digg iconDelicious iconReddit iconFark iconYahoo! iconNewsvine! iconFacebook iconNewsTrust icon

Also by Annalee Newitz

A Polite Message from the Surveillance State
If only the government would warn you when it was recording your conversations, like Google.
Jan 29, 2008

Why We Shouldn't Fear Cloned Meat
People are freaked out by the FDA's ruling that cloned meat is safe to eat, but we eat cloned plants all the time.
Jan 22, 2008

What Happens When Blogs Go Mainstream?
Will blogs take on all the bad habits of the mainstream media or will it help the media progress just a bit further toward independence of thought?
Jan 17, 2008

More stories by Annalee Newitz

Get AlterNet in
your mailbox!

 
Advertisement

Two years ago tech entrepreneur Joi Ito was spending a lot of time with the managers and editors of the collaborative encyclopedia Wikipedia, and he noticed that there were far more women wikipedians than women bloggers. In late 2004, Ito wrote in his blog:

Wikipedia seems much more gender balanced than the blogging community ... I wonder what causes this difference in gender distribution? Is it that the power law aspect of blogs is inherently more competitive and appeals to the way men are "trained" in society? Or is it that we're just talking to the "head" of the blog curve and that the more interesting blogs are actually by women in "the long tail"? Or is it something about Wikipedia that attracts powerful women?

He received a handful of comments, almost entirely from men, which all boiled down to "I don't know" or "maybe women are just more collaborative." As far as I know, Ito never got any good answers to his questions.

But last month a group of women finally provided an unexpected rejoinder to Ito's long-ago musings. Dozens of long-term contributors to Wikipedia formed the WikiChix, a group modeled after the female-dominated Linux Chix. WikiChix, who of course have a wiki, say they are sick of how male-dominated Wikipedia has become.

One example of this problem, which isn't explicitly discussed on WikiChix, is the "feminist science fiction" entry on Wikipedia. All wikis like Wikipedia are web sites that can be modified by people browsing them. Contributors create an account, hit an edit button on any page, and then add their own information. Certain entries, however, get ensnared in "revision wars" -- battles between editors who keep changing information back and forth to reflect what they consider true. "Feminist science fiction" was one such entry.

Although this is a legitimate genre of science fiction and many famous SF writers such as Ursula K. Le Guin and Kim Stanley Robinson consider all or part of their work to be feminist, the entry was subject to such an intense revision war that at last administrators determined that it should be removed and replaced with "women in science fiction" in 2002. Obviously, "women in science fiction" is hardly the same thing as feminist science fiction, in the same way an entry on "operating systems" could hardly be said to replace an entry on "Linux." It wasn't until June of this year that the category "feminist science fiction" was created again, after a great deal of agitation.

As I said, this particular entry wasn't cited specifically by the WikiChix as their reason for creating the group. But many issues like this one led them to form a women-only wiki to discuss Wikipedia and wiki management more generally. The question their move raises is as old as feminism itself. Is it better for women to segregate themselves or stay in the male-dominated realm of Wikipedia and fight to be given an equal voice? In the WikiChix FAQ, the group writes to men who don't like the idea of separatism:

Instead of feeling excluded, try to see [WikiChix] as an opportunity to hear a conversation you would not hear otherwise. If men are not talking, what women say to each other becomes a different conversation. When we as women can stop defending ourselves and explaining that bias, sexism, or patriarchy exist, then we can move further in discussion and support of each other.

Is it really separatism if these women are posting in a public forum? I think not. They've simply created a public forum where all the speakers are women. More than that, though, I want to know what happened between 2004 and 2006 that turned Wikipedia from gender-balanced to gender-imbalanced. Glancing at the gender distribution of contributors who list themselves on Wikipedia, it looks like the ratio is nearly equal (as of this writing, there are 77 women and 80 men). That only captures the people who bother to list their names and genders, however. Still, I want to know: Did something change? Or was it just that there were problems all along and the only change is that women are finally speaking out about them?

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: feminism, wikipedia

Annalee Newitz (annalee@techsploitation.com) is a surly media nerd who thanks Laura Quilter for fighting to keep feminist science fiction in Wikipedia.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Women & Technology
Posted by: NoPCZone on Dec 19, 2006 12:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's only anecdotal, but I work in a technical occupation populated mostly with women and have for years (about 20). We also see University students, again mostly women, come and go as part of their education.

Women generally see technology as a means to an end while many men get wrapped up in the geekiness of it all. Put simply- many/most women use technology only if they must or they see a compelling advantage in knowing it. They also only want to know enough to be proficient in whatever task the technology addresses.

Go to any college and take a look around the Computer Science Department. You see a heavy bias toward men- a very heavy bias. Very few women are working in the field and not many are joining in. The world is a worse place for it.

Everyone knows that, in general, women are wired differently than men in outlook, sensibility and intuition. Having a significant number of women working in all of the areas of high technology from software development to web design to collaborative online projects like Wikipedia would be to everyone's advantage.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Women & Technology Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Women & Technology Posted by: marxalot
» RE: Women & Technology Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: Women & Technology Posted by: Jill Valentine
» RE: Women & Technology Posted by: zerostress
The wrong aisle
Posted by: lamar on Dec 19, 2006 1:00 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow. Reading this article gave me the feeling that I wandered into the tampon aisle. I can't lose my cool and run, but I'm irrationally bewildered nonetheless.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: The wrong aisle Posted by: mr. joshua
» RE: The wrong aisle Posted by: lamar
» The view from the tampon aisle Posted by: HeroesAll
» RE: The wrong aisle Posted by: mr. joshua
» so tell me... Posted by: ryandake
» RE: Huh? Posted by: Plexius
Hey!
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 19, 2006 3:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wikipedia is my favorite site of all time.

Where else can you get any kind of information imaginable without all kinds of multi-colored crap flashing and popping up in your face? Or or having to sign up? Or pay a fee? Or jumping through some other friggin hoop?

Free information by the people and for the people.

I've edited it plenty of times, and have never been asked if I'm male or female.

Please don't pick on a good thing, and please don't create some political mess where there is none...please???

Keep up the good work, Wikipedia. Don't ever change. We love you!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Hey! Posted by: Leman
the feminist getto
Posted by: Ghoulman on Dec 19, 2006 7:41 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... I've always advocated women must do it themselves, no man (or male dominated culture) will give it away. Make you're own news, make you're own movies, etc. But in the land of "facts" it strikes me as skewed that there should be a seperation of the facts into a male then, opposingly perhaps, a female view.

Women must demand thier view is a true one, part of the whole, reflecting all of history, fact, etc. Which had simply been ignored (or taken for granted) in the past. And demand thier facts and history be included in "actual" fact and history (I realize this is just wiki, go with it). Somehow, creating a seperate "womans' Wiki" strikes me as segregating facts, placing the woman's view in a cyber-getto. Wiki should reflect women too, it's not like women can't edit those pages... in spite of the articles points, I'd rather this be fought head on. After all, the Wiki guys just nerds!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: the feminist getto Posted by: laoma
» RE: the feminist getto Posted by: Ghoulman
from a WikiChix member
Posted by: chomsky on Dec 20, 2006 5:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To correct some things:
* WikiChix is not about stopping women from contributing to Wikipedia or any other project, or creating an alternate "women's Wikipedia" - if anything it's about finding ways to encourage more women to contribute
* WikiChix is not actually "a public forum". For the moment the wiki (except for a few pages) and mailing list are restricted to women.
* the existence of WikiChix does not suddenly make the topic of gender bias an irrelevant question in the existing discussion groups and lists, by any means.

The topic of "feminist science fiction" is interesting, I didn't know about the issues there.

I want to know what happened between 2004 and 2006 that turned Wikipedia from gender-balanced to gender-imbalanced. ...Did something change? Or was it just that there were problems all along and the only change is that women are finally speaking out about them?

My feeling is that it's the latter. There has never been any kind of reliable mass user survey though, not to mention the vexed question of how to define an editor/contributor anyway, so it's all pretty hairy guesswork.

cheers, pfctdayelise (via bugmenot)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

If this be separatism, make the most of it
Posted by: hagwind on Dec 20, 2006 5:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From the WikiChix FAQ:
Instead of feeling excluded, try to see [WikiChix] as an opportunity to hear a conversation you would not hear otherwise. If men are not talking, what women say to each other becomes a different conversation. When we as women can stop defending ourselves and explaining that bias, sexism, or patriarchy exist, then we can move further in discussion and support of each other.

Very, very well put. The WikiChix are being generous in keeping their discussion open to anyone who wants to listen -- perhaps the men who don't like being excluded from the conversation could use this as an opportunity to improve their listening skills.

Separatism is an important organizing tool for any group that is shut out of power, and no, it's not the same as being confined to a ghetto: ghettos are the tools of those who are in power (which is not to say that those confined to ghettos haven't often taken the opportunity to organize in their own behalf).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Male dominion ?
Posted by: Jimbo on Dec 20, 2006 6:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wow, I didn't know that the last time I read about say Special Relativity on Wikipedia that I was exposing my self to female bashing, patriarchal propoganda. Ill be sure to refer to Wicked Chicks next time for an unbiased account.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Male dominion ? Posted by: stoneinthestream
New paradigm or status quo?
Posted by: LauraB on Dec 20, 2006 8:29 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
In my political organizing, I have found that women are not so concerned with who gets the credit for a job as much as they are concerned with making sure the job gets done right. I believe this rings true across a wide spectrum. With respect for the men who are supportive of women and their issues, this attitude permeates our society, and is well reflected in the partisanship in Congress -- the grandest of male dominions, where many women feel forced to become more man-like to succeed.

Time and again, I have seen my suggestions overlooked and in the course of the discussion, a man will reiterate what I just said and everyone jumps on the bandwagon, men and women alike. I don’t bother to get into a debate over whose idea it is -- I just put my shoulder to the wheel to help get the job done.

I applaud the women who created WikiChix. It’s gratifying to work together to seek solutions in a collaborative setting without competition for credit, knowing that those who deserve it will get their due. It is even more gratifying to work together with men who understand us and are not seeking credit for a collaborative effort, or for someone else’s idea. Men like this do exist; there just aren’t enough of them yet.

Like those men and many women, the time has come for the rest of society to put aside our top-down patriarchal paradigm and form more collaborative processes in our decision-making and problem solving. When this occurs, we will see a more equitable distribution of gender in technology, science, politics, and business.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WikiChix--interesting premise, but is it relevant?
Posted by: ABetterFuture on Dec 20, 2006 9:28 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think yes, if you enjoy collaborating with others and are willing to seek out folks you enjoy collaborating with. Thus, from a personal-fulfillment standpoint, at a passing glance I'd have to rank WikiChix up there with any other decent social organization.

Also, because Wiki and Linux are open source, whatever folks who engage in collaborative enterprise accomplish is (largely, at least) in the public domain, so it has the potential effect of benefitting even those who aren't included in the "subgroup".

So, I'm guessing if Chix (or Buds, for that matter) of any stripe feel uncomfortable in the domain at large, it makes sense to collaborate together in smaller groups that are part-of-but-outside the larger sphere. People tend to gravitate towards where they feel comfortable, and if certain Chix/Buds feel more comfortable and more productive with some measure of a digital divide between them and the harsh world "out there", then more power to them.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Whadayamean, "Chix"?
Posted by: lynmarenjensen on Dec 20, 2006 10:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First of all, who's the person who knows each and every entry on Wikipedia and knows whether it was made by a man or a woman? Second, if something on Wikipedia seems male-dominant or sexist to you, just change it. (Note why you changed it, too, so others will have a trail to follow concerning alleged sexism on Wikipedia.) Last, what's this "chix" BS? That sounds more sexist and male-dominated than anything I've read on Wikipedia.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Alternet comment threads Posted by: Donna_Darko
A pattern in mixed-gender feminist spaces online
Posted by: lizzardhenry on Dec 20, 2006 11:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is a really excellent article for background in why women leave online discussion groups, with a great analysis of complex patterns of hostile anti-feminist trolling.

Searching for Safety Online: Managing "Trolling" in a Feminist Forum

I highly recommend it to anyone who wants to understand some of the gender dynamics in online discussions.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

examples abound, here's one
Posted by: anniedine on Dec 20, 2006 12:18 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To those posters on here whose first reaction to this article is patronizing condescension, just look at your own behavior. Women point out that something is happening in their experience as women, invariably someone condescendingly tells them they're wrong about their own experiences. Based on what? That condescending person's OWN experiences, which are, of course, more important than women's experiences overall.

Just one example of this crap on Wikipedia. Denise Denton was a brilliant engineer, college professor, and university administrator who worked very hard to climb the ranks AND to help others climb those same ranks. She happened to be a lesbian, too, and died by suicide this last year. New entries to the article on Wikipedia immediately after her death were disgusting, so a few of us who knew about her life and work (none of us knew her personally) went on there and fixed the article using official information from the universities where Denton worked and from her own vita and biography.

A massive battle erupted over the editing and re-editing of the article – a group of men (they have open identities in the wikipedia forums) decided they knew best what the entry should say rather than using official information. Their constant re-editing continued to put the entry back to something that was wildly unbalanced in the negative toward Denton. In the forum the men who did this bullied anyone who made changes to the entry that reflected better on Denton. Those bullies eventually got their way as far as I was concerned – I got disgusted and left the whole thing. Which was certainly part of the intention of these men: to keep this particular playground all for themselves.

I have no idea what Denton's article looks like today – I won't go near it after seeing what a bunch of homophobic, woman-hating men were so intent on doing. I know that much of the forum discussion was wiped off of wikipedia for various reasons as well – but there may still be plenty of indication there of the bias the WikiChix are pointing out.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: examples abound, here's one Posted by: mr. joshua
Ichabod's Horse
Posted by: Ichabod's Horse on Dec 20, 2006 1:45 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I am a electrical engineer and have been reviewing a number of wiki articles in my area. I agree that there is a real problem with obnoxious wiki contributors. Some of the discussions behind the articles are amazing. In particular the speed with which a disagreement over simple terms will sprial down into a school yard brawl of name calling and ad hominem attacks.

And most appear to be men. But its not a male female thing. It's the "email" effect, where one will type out rudeness that one would never have the guts to deliver face to face. Well most anyway.

I have concluded that wikipedia, while an interesting amusement, is ultimately crap.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ichabod's Horse Posted by: JDBishop5
Hmmm...
Posted by: TWilliams on Dec 20, 2006 2:52 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When I was a computer science major 90% of my clasmates were male. Either women as a general category were not interested in it or the entire system is orrupt and controlled by elitist males that have a secret agenda to oppress women. Also, never mind the fact that anyone can sign up for whatever classes they wanted.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Its Complicated
Posted by: snedunuri on Dec 20, 2006 7:16 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think its fair to blame the lack of female participation on Wikipedia on "male domination". This kind of thinking went out about 30 years ago. For example, How many women today would call themselves "feminist"? A: Very few. This is because feminism often took to bandying around easy slogans that, even though they may have contained an element of truth, were never really adequate explanations. For example, returning to wikepedia, the explanation for the absence of female contributors is much more complicated. It partly has to do with women's reluctance to express their opinions in a public place. Also, much of wikipedia is technology oriented. Women don't have as much of an interest in technology for technology's sake as men do. (which could be because when growing up girls are subtly steered away from technology). When you post something on Wikipedia you are taking a risk that what you post might get flamed, mocked, or just plain deleted. Women generally are more risk averse. I could go on, but it should be clear that a few domineering patriarcal men on te wikipedia ( and I don't deny that they exist) aren't the entire explanation for the absence of women.

In the end if any group wants to break into some avenue (be it hi-tech, movies, sports, or wikipedia) it happens through the efforts of individuals in that group, who lead the way and mentor others to do the same. This is how black Americans have made their way into many fields previously denied them. Its how immigrants to this country have succeeded. If women wish to change things they too must do the same.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

As old as the Internet
Posted by: Marcy on Dec 20, 2006 8:33 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, this issue is as old as feminism, but it's also worth mentioning that it's particularly ubiquitous on the Internet. I have to remind myself every so often when I'm having trouble that I'm dealing with men (we forget when they're only a name). When I post on baseball forums, for instance, I'm frequently corrected, ridiculed or disregarded. Also, the guys are more interested in statistics than perceived performance, and they do not share my interest in off-the-field dish (who's mad at who; who hangs out where, etc). Ever 'twas and ever 'twill be so.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Something’s Fishy About Political Correctness
Posted by: cognitorex on Dec 21, 2006 10:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If one allometrically scales the taxon mammals for encephalization quotient the results indicate that man and the porpoise are most equal. This affinity alone could explain why porpoises and humans interact so well.
Also, whales, followed by elephants, rank highest in brain size surpassing the three-pound brain weight of man and porpoise.
These facts once led me to a complete teleological construct for the animal kingdom, plants included, and the universe.
Simply stated, plants and man, each of carbon and water, seek similar corporal and spiritual nourishment and the “big brains” speak or sing their love of God (generic).
It was a beautiful theory. All existence, all spirituality, gloriously, harmoniously, and ever so upliftingly encapsulated. Man and plants together turn to the same spiritual sun and the hauntingly beautiful whale songs were psalms to God, hymns to the infinite.
Then I found out that female whales can’t or don’t or aren’t allowed to sing.
What a God damn bummer that was.
( cognitorex blogspot )

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

This Boggles the Mind
Posted by: questionthemark1 on Dec 21, 2006 11:21 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Women have created an alternate wikipedia? What? What the F%ck?

....why?


Gender imbalance?

Who Fucking cares?

Seriously, this doesn't make any sense. The whole idea is that everyone is equal and works together. By creating a separate wiki (if there's no enemy, there's no purpose) they are essentially saying that the difference in sex (I have a cock, they have vaginas) is worth more than any other difference, whether race, religion, finances, political beliefs, etc. Even if it's true, THAT'S THE POINT OF WIKIPEDIA. If everyone had the same shit wikipedia would be utterly pointless. As long as the gender imbalance isn't an enforced policy (and it's not) it doesn't matter. Women and men are interested in different things, this isn't news.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Pathetic. OH MY GAWD!
Posted by: H_H on Dec 22, 2006 10:33 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So Wikipedia, a service which self-consciously tries to adhere to high standards of neutrality, cannot be neutral because too many men are using it and they might subconsciously exclude women or 'make women feel uncomfortable'.

In contrast, the 'female pespective' (i.e.: the feminist perspective) doesn't have to be self-consciously neutral at all. In fact, it needs to consciously exclude men and that's so much better.

WHAT! A! JOKE!

So they need a separatist little space where they can create their own little reality where they don't have to deal with things that they don't like and things that make them feeeeeeel bad.

PATHETIC!

A special 'women's perspective' is all-important. Oh, but hold on, isn't a special 'women's intuition' just a sexist male-made myth? Well, not any more. Now it's women who claim to have an exotic, mysterious, superior way of knowing things and that's fine.

God, am I going to puke. Is there no limit to this idiocy?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]