You say you don't trust Wikipedia? Well, you can blame men, at least for the most part.
According to a survey of 175,000 Wikipedia users, about a third of respondents reported that they actually help write and edit encyclopedia entries -- as opposed to merely reading them -- and of that group women constitute a paltry 13%.
That more men than women take the time to write, edit and wrangle over Wikipedia entries is not surprising. However, that the disparity between the participation of the sexes is so cavernous may raise eyebrows.
According to a Wall Street Journal blog:
The November survey, which had some 175,000 valid responses, was conducted in multiple languages by the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that operates the site, and United Nations University's tech-research program MERIT. They presented the initial findings last week at Wikimania, an annual conference held this year in Buenos Aires. A comprehensive report is scheduled for November.
Of the 53,888 respondents who said they contribute to Wikipedia, only 6,814 were women (12.6%). The male/female ratio is closer among those who read entries but don't write or edit them: 69% men to 31% women.
In the "about" page on its Web site, Wikipedia proprietors acknowledges a gender gap among their ranks: "While most articles may be altered by anyone, in practice editing will be performed by a certain demographic (younger rather than older, male rather than female, rich enough to afford a computer rather than poor, et cetera) and may, therefore, show some bias."
Male rather than female in this case apparently means about seven men for every woman. (Note: Math fixed from earlier.)
I've asked Wikipedia for comment about the survey.
Meanwhile, Wikipedia also has announced a new editing scheme that will use color-coded overlays to help guide readers as to which entries and editing changes are deemed to be more reliable than others. If it works as advertised, the tool could be a valuable addition to the site and help alleviate concerns about inaccuracies and vandalism.
According to this PC World story on our site:
In a bid to become a more trustworthy source, Wikipedia will use color codes to indicate the reliability of an article's author. Called "WikiTrust," the optional feature will assign a color code to newly-edited text, based on the author's reputation.
Famous for its vast number of articles, but not for its reliability, Wikipedia is looking to rehabilitate itself. Starting this fall, text from new or questionable sources will be signalled with a bright orange background, while trusted authors will get a lighter shade.
And who knows? Perhaps a splash of color will entice more women to participate.
Welcome regulars and passersby. Here are a few more recent Buzzblog items. And, if you'd like to receive Buzzblog via e-mail newsletter, here's where to sign up.
2009's 25 Geekiest 25th Anniversaries.
Online spending down ... except for games, toys and books.
Tenant's tweet about mold prompts $50,000 libel suit by obnoxious landlord.
Apple take legal heel off throat of wiki operator.
Why would Microsoft patent a 'butt hinge with butt straps'?
Want a city job? Fork over your usernames and passwords.
The Leader in Network Knowledge
And just what is wrong with men's work in the first place?
This superficial, sloppy, sexist article article talks about two completely different topics. One is that most Wikipedia edits are made by men. The article begins by stating "You say you don't trust Wikipedia? Well, you can blame men, at least for the most part." No mention is made anywhere about exactly what is wrong with the men's contributions, and what sort of biases if any. The implication is that if most edits were made by women, they would be immune from such issues as sloppy scholarship and bias. No evidence is shown to support that, or to quantify the quality of work done by men editors in the first place.
The other topic is that there is a new color scheme for the articles to indicate whether an article's editors are new, untrustworthy, or have an established reputation. This isn't tied in to the first topic at all, except for the concluding sentence: "And who knows? Perhaps a splash of color will entice more women to participate." This is a complete non-sequitur.
Famale brains are 10%
Famale brains are 10% smaller than males.
Big enough to know how to
Big enough to know how to spell female
Very interesting
This is truly shocking. I'm struggling to even hypothesize the reasons, considering the obviously comparable intellectual ability of women. It must stem from personality differences or social pressure, I guess.
And to Anon @8:54, please. No such implication was made. Sure, the title was somewhat flippant, but you can't make that logical leap without pulling a groin. Lighten up, already. Have some coffee.
Perhaps more women than men
Perhaps more women than men are:
(1) working full-time
(2) spending time at work actually doing work, not writing Wikipedia entries.
I find this disparity surprising. I've written several Wikipedia pages, and I edit those that need it, as well.
GO
GO MEN!
This is quite ridiculous.
This is quite ridiculous. The title implies either:women are being disallowed, or expected not the ability to edit this information. Its the same fallacy that occurs in the gender wage gap. Much has been fixed for equality, but men on average being more assertive than the average female, demand (and thus receive) a higher wage/raises. When will people understand that there is a reason we have two different genders, and its not just because one has a ding a ling and the other a hoo-ha. Equality and sameness are two different things, get over it already!
I can't wait to hear how
I can't wait to hear how this disparity PROVES that Wikipedia is sexist.
Could it be that men and women are inherently different, and the feminist insistence that the sexes are equal distorts reality?
"Perhaps a splash of color
"Perhaps a splash of color will entice more women to participate." - Riiight, because women are silly creatures who are easily amused bright colors.
This is the dumbest article
This is the dumbest article I've read on the internet in months. The first comment sums it up.
Post new comment