Only 13% of Wikipedia contributors are women

9 posts / 0 new
Last post
martin dufresne
Only 13% of Wikipedia contributors are women

Excerpted from Wall Street Journal blog, see full text here:

Only 13% of Wikipedia Contributors Are Women, Study Says
August 31, 2009

A broad new survey of Wikipedia users found that only 13% of the online encyclopedia's contributors are women. 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 ( . . . ) Of the 53,888 respondents who said they contribute to Wikipedia, only 6,814 were women. The male/female ratio is closer among those who read entries but don't write or edit them: 69% men to 31% women. The average respondent age hovers in the twentysomethings. Men tend to be a few years older, at 26, while women were 24 on average.

Altruism and fact-checking are the top motivations of contributors, the study found. About 73% indicated "I like the idea of sharing knowledge and want to contribute to it," while 69% said "I saw an error I wanted to fix" ( . . . ) When asked what would make them more likely to contribute to the site, the top response was if "I knew there were specific topic areas that needed my help" (41%), followed by "It was clear to me that other people would benefit from my efforts" (36%) ( . . . ) Among the reasons for not contributing, many respondents cited time constraints, satisfaction with just reading entries or simply not knowing how to edit the pages. One quarter, however, said they're afraid of making a mistake "and getting 'in trouble' for it" ( . . . )

 

remind remind's picture

Men apparently do not give a shit about making a "mistake", eh! ;)

 

martin dufresne

Not only that but they take to some Wiki sites with a vengeance, attempting and often succeeding in destroying pages that deal with gender issues with contrarian revisions. One has to be ready and willing to engage in literal dog-fights to try and save a Wiki page from their sabotage.

remind remind's picture

Well they have to keep their privilege you know! 

Perhaps this is an area where women should get involved though.

martin dufresne

That was the point of the woman who posted this bit of news on the PAR-L list. Part of the problem is that Wikipedia seems to be one of those liberal, community initiatives that have to be dragged kicking and screaming into any recognition of systemic oppression. So all it takes is for someone to allege discrimination against men to paralyze a feminist account, even an objective one. And mediation doesn't help because of that liberal attitude that stops short of standing up to denial specialists. (Sarcasm alert: Not a problem on Babble, fortunately...)

I wasted two years confronting Quebec's Indymedia sites that allowed local antifeminists to systematically smear feminists and pollute threads to the point that they chased away almost all female participants. Covertly antifeminist "progressives" at our local Indymedia org played a big part in abetting the saboteurs.

 

remind remind's picture

Sounds like babble.

West Coast Greeny

remind wrote:

Men apparently do not give a shit about making a "mistake", eh! ;)

 

Have you seen us drive?

Interesting article. I'm a wikiholic.

remind remind's picture

Oh...so it is you who is making all the wiki entries for the Green Party, its candidates and officials. Amazing work! ;)

al-Qa'bong

I'm of a couple of minds on this.  On the one hand, wikipaedia is worthless, except as a source for TV show synopses and celebrity biographies.

 

Hmmm, maybe I'm of one mind on this. 

In any case, if females take over and improve the content of the site, I look forward to the new, improved...Chickipaedia.