Support NeoGAF

[The Technomancer]

Even the most famous fashion designers — Manolo Blahnik or Jimmy Choo — get but a handful of paragraphs. And consider the disparity between two popular series on HBO: The entry on “Sex and the City” includes only a brief summary of every episode, sometimes two or three sentences; the one on “The Sopranos” includes lengthy, detailed articles on each episode.

I really don't know what she wants. If Wikipedia was a dedicated group of individuals working on cataloging knowledge then yes, an emphasis on "masculine" shows over "feminine" shows might be of note. But when your content is user-generated, you get more content based on the demographics of your users. If some women want better Sex and the City summaries, then they can write them, just like how some random guy a few years ago decided he wanted better Sopranos entries.

 

[PoliceCop]

It's probably not fair to label Sex and the City "total garbage". Then again, it's also not fair to compare it to what is widely considered on of the best TV dramas ever.

 

[Atrus]

Let's see... society at large influences women to become a weak-willed subserviant under-class and we should be surprised that women are content with being lazy?

It's representative of an almost species-wide handicap that's effectively halved our overall productivity.

Women are made to be more fearful, more risk averse, more reliant on others, more agreeable and they themselves take little issue with it because that's they way they and their female ancestors have been raised for countless generations. Men on the other hand have titans to learn from, look up to, or emulate, while women have little in comparison.

In life one takes up risks to move ahead. By being so risk-averse, women cripple themselves greatly. Even if we can attribute this to a biological constraint, the human brain is plastic enough overcome trivial fears.

The downside to this recognition is that women become antagonistic against their own gender under the idea that eliminating female identity is the only way one achieves significance. We can see this with the great occurance of women with male names which when compared to the relative absence of men with female names, show that the very identity of being female is one of disgust or embarrasment.

 

[Slayven]

Let's see... society at large influences women to become a weak-willed subserviant under-class and we should be surprised that women are content with being lazy?

It's representative of an almost species-wide handicap that's effectively halved our overall productivity.

Women are made to be more fearful, more risk averse, more reliant on others, more agreeable and they themselves take little issue with it because that's they way they and their female ancestors have been raised for countless generations. Men on the other hand have titans to learn from, look up to, or emulate, while women have little in comparison.

In life one takes up risks to move ahead. By being so risk-averse, women cripple themselves greatly. Even if we can attribute this to a biological constraint, the human brain is plastic enough overcome trivial fears.

The downside to this recognition is that women become antagonistic against their own gender under the idea that eliminating female identity is the only way one achieves significance. We can see this with the great occurance of women with male names which when compared to the relative absence of men with female names, show that the very identity of being female is one of disgust or embarrasment.

Too much Riskychris.

 

[Fugu]

EDIT: You know what? I've re-read the second article and I've concluded that I don't want to be accused of defending the sexist tripe in the second half just because she made a legitimate point in the first half.

Having a gender bias means that certain articles will not receive as much attention as they could (simply because editors tend to edit articles about things that they know things about).
But women afraid of debate? What?

 

[Korey]

I really don't know what she wants. If Wikipedia was a dedicated group of individuals working on cataloging knowledge then yes, an emphasis on "masculine" shows over "feminine" shows might be of note. But when your content is user-generated, you get more content based on the demographics of your users. If some women want better Sex and the City summaries, then they can write them, just like how some random guy a few years ago decided he wanted better Sopranos entries.

She wants more women to edit Wikipedia. Not sure why this is so difficult for people to grasp.

 

[The Technomancer]

Wow, a lot of you missed the point.

I don't think that the author is saying that Wikipedia inherently discourages women from contributing , but rather that the bias that exists inherently makes it more likely that certain subjects are overlooked or ignored because editors tend to edit articles about things that they know about.

Right, that's an issue if and only if Wikipedia is a closed system with the goal of cataloging all human information. Then you can complain if its writers unfairly neglect a gender or demographic. But its not. Its an open system. The whole point is that anyone can add. No-one has any obligation to contribute to topics that don't interest them because the fundamental idea is that everyone is supposed to add to their areas of interest.

She wants more women to edit Wikipedia. Not sure why this is so difficult for people to grasp.

I grasp that just fine. What I don't understand are a lot of the other quotes in this thread where she makes it seem like its somehow an issue with Wikipedia itself. There is nothing wrong with the Wikipedia model that relates to this problem.

 

[PoliceCop]

You know, I never really understood second-wave feminism. Still don't.

That's probably because it's largely pointless and divorced from what's supposed to be its aim.

 

[Atrus]

You know, I never really understood second-wave feminism. Still don't.

I'm not a feminist in the least.

 

[dudeworld]

She wants more women to edit Wikipedia. Not sure why this is so difficult for people to grasp.

1. Force women to edit articles just for the sake of having women edit articles
2. Results in lower quality articles because the women really don't want to be doing it (which is why they're not volunteering)
3. ????
4. No profit because Wikipedia is a non-profit organization

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Not that this question particularly matters, but wouldn't this be 3rd wave feminism?

 

[Quixzlizx]

Let's see... society at large influences women to become a weak-willed subserviant under-class and we should be surprised that women are content with being lazy?

It's representative of an almost species-wide handicap that's effectively halved our overall productivity.

Women are made to be more fearful, more risk averse, more reliant on others, more agreeable and they themselves take little issue with it because that's they way they and their female ancestors have been raised for countless generations. Men on the other hand have titans to learn from, look up to, or emulate, while women have little in comparison.

In life one takes up risks to move ahead. By being so risk-averse, women cripple themselves greatly. Even if we can attribute this to a biological constraint, the human brain is plastic enough overcome trivial fears.

The downside to this recognition is that women become antagonistic against their own gender under the idea that eliminating female identity is the only way one achieves significance. We can see this with the great occurance of women with male names which when compared to the relative absence of men with female names, show that the very identity of being female is one of disgust or embarrasment.

So, in order to rise up to be equals with men, women need to act more like how men currently do, but acting more like how men currently do is evidence that they loathe women? OK.

 

[Fugu]

Right, that's an issue if and only if Wikipedia is a closed system with the goal of cataloging all human information. Then you can complain if its writers unfairly neglect a gender or demographic. But its not. Its an open system. The whole point is that anyone can add. No-one has any obligation to contribute to topics that don't interest them because the fundamental idea is that everyone is supposed to add to their areas of interest.

It is explicitly because no one has any obligation to contribute to topics that don't interest them that Wikipedia should be concerned that topics that don't interest their demographic are not being given adequate attention.

There is a fairly large problem on Wikipedia regarding US-centric and UK-centric articles because that's where a big percentage of the editors on any given article come from; increased perspective allows for a factually more relevant and therefore more informative article, whereas the inverse means that it is more likely that whatever the topic is will only be discussed within the context of those demographics. What are the odds that an article edited by a group that consists of 85% Americans will be able to effectively contextualize an article from the perspective of the entire world? It's unlikely and when you're talking about an organization that puts out millions of articles, any kind of demographic bias like that is bound to generate a pattern.

I'm not a feminist in the least.

Yet your victim-based analysis of the female gender is fairly consistent with how second-wave feminists interpret the state of their gender. Then again, I wouldn't really describe them as feminists (in the strictest sense of the word) either, so it's a confusing issue.

 

[cooljeanius]

There is a fairly large problem on Wikipedia regarding US-centric and UK-centric articles because that's where a big percentage of the editors on that article come from;

At least on the English Wikipedia, the other language Wikipedias focus on areas where their respective languages are spoken.

 

[Fugu]

At least on the English Wikipedia, the other language Wikipedias focus on areas where their respective languages are spoken.

Of course. I would likewise be concerned that the French Wikipedia is overly oriented towards how issues affect France (and Quebec I guess).

 

[charlequin]

No-one has any obligation to contribute to topics that don't interest them because the fundamental idea is that everyone is supposed to add to their areas of interest.

The issue is specifically that since (as you point out) no one should have to contribute to topics they aren't interested and knowledgeable in, the encyclopedia will be a much better encyclopedia if its editors have as diverse a set of interests as possible. If women and men tend to have some degree of non-overlapping interests, Wikipedia will be a better reference if both men and women are contributing to articles about their areas of interest.

The issue shouldn't be understood as "Wikipedia is sexist," but rather as "Wikipedia should find ways to incentivize more diverse contributors, because then it'll be a better encyclopedia."

/thread

Independent of what is being said in the post in question and whether the topic of discussion is heated and controversial or laid-back and easygoing, please don't do this.

Having a gender bias means that certain articles will not receive as much attention as they could (simply because editors tend to edit articles about things that they know things about).
But women afraid of debate? What?

This is a problem with these kinds of issues in general, certainly.

I think the starting point is pretty clear. It's obviously a problem for Wikipedia, not one of sexism but rather simply of doing the best job possible, if certain subsets of people aren't represented in the site's content. It's supposed to be a broad, sweeping reference about, essentially, everything, which means any missing demographic might make it a less useful encyclopedia. As stump points out, many businesses would react the same way if their offering was nominally gender-neutral but their customer base was this strongly bent in one direction. Everyone ought to be able to agree this far.

From that point, though, it gets hairier. I think it's clear that there are systemic reasons that the gender measure breaks down this way, but attributing it to issues like "women don't like confrontation" easily steps past reasonable advocacy and into gender essentialism. (Same issue comes up in threads about "female gamers" -- almost any easy explanation about why there are fewer women playing games, or why a given game is popular with women, has a tendency to be far too reductionist, sometimes to the point of being insulting.)

 

[Atrus]

So, in order to rise up to be equals with men, women need to act more like how men currently do, but acting more like how men currently do is evidence that they loathe women? OK.

Only of you take a simplistic reading and then jump to a stupid conclusion.

Reason is immaterial to gender and certain actions are required to produce certain outcomes. Economic status doesn't magically appear and the path to it requires taking action on certain variables. However, there is no reason one should distance themselves from their gender while doing so.

Alongside my work, I've been noting the occurance of women with male origin names and vice versa. It doesn't take a genious to see which side is larger. If this was a movement of equity, then we should not see such one-sided changes nor would we see a significant disincliantion toward women with names of Patriarchs. Whenever that happens, women are instead given feminized Patriarchal names as opposed the names themselves.

My prelimenary research also shows that the motivations lie behind gender disatisfaction behind the naming conventions since older male names now established as female like Alison and Ashley, are now too female.

 

[Fugu]

From that point, though, it gets hairier. I think it's clear that there are systemic reasons that the gender measure breaks down this way, but attributing it to issues like "women don't like confrontation" easily steps past reasonable advocacy and into gender essentialism. (Same issue comes up in threads about "female gamers" -- almost any easy explanation about why there are fewer women playing games, or why a given game is popular with women, has a tendency to be far too reductionist, sometimes to the point of being insulting.)

I find it sexist and ass-backwards (for the lack of a better term) for her to attribute it to debate being a manly-man structure for men when there are other and more pertinent trends that she should point to -- such as a culture-wide bias towards anything less than social networking on the internet as an exclusively masculine and reclusive activity and the associated challenges that that phenomenon poses to any woman who wants to become involved with a project such as Wikipedia, as well as a general (but dying) trend of academia being male-oriented -- that don't rely on the genderization of gender-neutral constructs like logical debate.

 

[BladeoftheImmortal]

When are we going to close the staggering neogaf gender gap?

Whenever Evilore does anything concerning the site. :lol

 

[Atrus]

Yet your victim-based analysis of the female gender is fairly consistent with how second-wave feminists interpret the state of their gender. Then again, I wouldn't really describe them as feminists (in the strictest sense of the word) either, so it's a confusing issue.

There are victims in these sorts of handicaps and the victim is humanity itself. Our advances thus far as a species has been largely on the achievements and contributions of men. Aside from a small few, women are given kudos only for their minor traditional roles as mother and wife.

In the end this weakness only serves to infect everyone who lives in that society in some way be it in under-developed skillsets or mental aversions to gender-defined activities.

 

[The Technomancer]

I find it sexist and ass-backwards (for the lack of a better term) for her to attribute it to debate being a manly-man structure for men when there are other and more pertinent trends that she should point to -- such as a culture-wide bias towards anything less than social networking on the internet as an exclusively masculine and reclusive activity and the associated challenges that that phenomenon poses to any woman who wants to become involved with a project such as Wikipedia, as well as a general (but dying) trend of academia being male-oriented -- that don't rely on the genderization of gender-neutral constructs like logical debate.

I think we're on the same page then. I agree that Wikipedia could maybe do more promotion or "outreach" to try and get a broader spectrum of contributors, and that there are social issues keeping it from being that broad, but I completely disagree with the author's implications that the gender imbalance is due to a flaw in the Wikipedia model.

 

[Neo C.]

The issue is specifically that since (as you point out) no one should have to contribute to topics they aren't interested and knowledgeable in, the encyclopedia will be a much better encyclopedia if its editors have as diverse a set of interests as possible. If women and men tend to have some degree of non-overlapping interests, Wikipedia will be a better reference if both men and women are contributing to articles about their areas of interest.

The issue shouldn't be understood as "Wikipedia is sexist," but rather as "Wikipedia should find ways to incentivize more diverse contributors, because then it'll be a better encyclopedia."

You get it.

It all comes down if you believe that the reality is socially constructed or not. If you think it is, then the gender gap might be a problem, especially when you know that wikipedia isn't inclusive but exclusive (articles seen as irrelevant might be deleted by mods). When the great majority of wikipedians are males, their view might dominate as well, even when articles are meant to be neutrally written.

Of course Wikipedia isn't (knowingly) sexistic, and (most of) the wikipedians haven't done anything wrong. I think the women should motivate themselves to participate into this project.

 

[Azih]

society at large influences women to become a weak-willed subserviant under-class

Is.. that way there are more women in college and university than men?

 

[Quixzlizx]

Only of you take a simplistic reading and then jump to a stupid conclusion.

Reason is immaterial to gender and certain actions are required to produce certain outcomes. Economic status doesn't magically appear and the path to it requires taking action on certain variables. However, there is no reason one should distance themselves from their gender while doing so.

Alongside my work, I've been noting the occurance of women with male origin names and vice versa. It doesn't take a genious to see which side is larger. If this was a movement of equity, then we should not see such one-sided changes nor would we see a significant disincliantion toward women with names of Patriarchs. Whenever that happens, women are instead given feminized Patriarchal names as opposed the names themselves.

My prelimenary research also shows that the motivations lie behind gender disatisfaction behind the naming conventions since older male names now established as female like Alison and Ashley, are now too female.

How did any of this make your last paragraph not contradictory with the rest of your first post?

1. You claim that women have been enfeebled due to socially-imprinted personality traits that result in "inferior" results.

2. You claim that this is due to women having female role models with the same enfeebling traits, while men have role models with traits that, implicitly, aren't enfeebling.

-My assumption: If you admit that you believe that women have an inferior station in society due to these traits, then it would be better for them not to have these traits, implicitly meaning they should acquire traits that are currently associated with males (i.e. traits that aren't the inferior traits you associate with females). I am not stating here that males have inherently superior traits, and females inherently inferior traits... I am trying to take 1. and 2. to a conclusion.

3. You then claim that women who gravitate towards a set of traits that are currently associated with males (through naming conventions or otherwise) are, by acquiring the male traits, antagonistic towards their own gender. I quote from your original post:

The downside to this recognition is that women become antagonistic against their own gender under the idea that eliminating female identity is the only way one achieves significance. We can see this with the great occurance of women with male names which when compared to the relative absence of men with female names, show that the very identity of being female is one of disgust or embarrasment.

My assumption: You are implying that it is a negative result when these females attempt to associate with male traits (through naming conventions or otherwise), because it results in them rejecting their own gender.

The conclusion summed up in my first reply: How can 3 make sense alongside 1 & 2? You claim yourself that "Let's see... society at large influences women to become a weak-willed subserviant under-class and we should be surprised that women are content with being lazy?" Then you claim that women who attempt to remove this stigma (a stigma by YOUR definition, by associating female behavior with risk-aversion/submissiveness/etc) are self-rejecting, rather than improving themselves. Which is it? Is the current female gender identity a socially-imposed handicap that needs to be eliminated as an anachronistic result of past patriarchy, or is it something that needs to be treasured and defended from being diluted by attacks such as naming conventions?

 

[charlequin]

I find it sexist and ass-backwards (for the lack of a better term) for her to attribute it to debate being a manly-man structure for men when there are other and more pertinent trends that she should point to -- such as a culture-wide bias towards anything less than social networking on the internet as an exclusively masculine and reclusive activity and the associated challenges that that phenomenon poses to any woman who wants to become involved with a project such as Wikipedia, as well as a general (but dying) trend of academia being male-oriented -- that don't rely on the genderization of gender-neutral constructs like logical debate.

Basically, yes. The idea that logic or debate pushes away women is definitely very problematic and there are plenty of social and cultural factors that can explain such a thing without resorting to offensive arguments about how women are fundamentally hard-wired in a way that makes them unsuitable to participation in Wikipedia.

 

[VelvetMouth]

Let's see... society at large influences women to become a weak-willed subserviant under-class and we should be surprised that women are content with being lazy?

It's representative of an almost species-wide handicap that's effectively halved our overall productivity.

Women are made to be more fearful, more risk averse, more reliant on others, more agreeable and they themselves take little issue with it because that's they way they and their female ancestors have been raised for countless generations. Men on the other hand have titans to learn from, look up to, or emulate, while women have little in comparison.

In life one takes up risks to move ahead. By being so risk-averse, women cripple themselves greatly. Even if we can attribute this to a biological constraint, the human brain is plastic enough overcome trivial fears.

The downside to this recognition is that women become antagonistic against their own gender under the idea that eliminating female identity is the only way one achieves significance. We can see this with the great occurance of women with male names which when compared to the relative absence of men with female names, show that the very identity of being female is one of disgust or embarrasment.

I'm a woman and I think your vagina is bigger than mine.

 

[charlequin]

It all comes down if you believe that the reality is socially constructed or not. If you think it is, then the gender gap might be a problem, especially when you know that wikipedia isn't inclusive but exclusive (articles seen as irrelevant might be deleted by mods).

This is one good reason (of many) why deletionism is a foolish philosophy for a project like Wikipedia, IMO.

 

[Steelrain]

I'm a woman and I think your vagina is bigger than mine.

lol

 

[Fugu]

There are victims in these sorts of handicaps and the victim is humanity itself. Our advances thus far as a species has been largely on the achievements and contributions of men. Aside from a small few, women are given kudos only for their minor traditional roles as mother and wife.

In the end this weakness only serves to infect everyone who lives in that society in some way be it in under-developed skillsets or mental aversions to gender-defined activities.

Of course women have been victimized and the consequences of this victimization serve only to hinder humanity as a whole (I'm not entirely certain how you can say something like this and not call yourself a feminist, but whatever). I don't disagree with any of this. However, this isn't really what your first post was about. Your first post implied that women can be strong by being women and simultaneously defined female traits as being those of weakness (due to female traits being defined by the roles that they had been relegated to within society), which is in direct contrast to the notion of female empowerment (the idea that a woman can be strong being anything she wants).

I think we're on the same page then. I agree that Wikipedia could maybe do more promotion or "outreach" to try and get a broader spectrum of contributors, and that there are social issues keeping it from being that broad, but I completely disagree with the author's implications that the gender imbalance is due to a flaw in the Wikipedia model.

Yep.

This is one good reason (of many) why deletionism is a foolish philosophy for a project like Wikipedia, IMO.

What do you expect them to do? Serious question.

 

[tiff]

Nope. Not when the "medium" in question is made up entirely of volunteer work.

So as long as women aren't being overtly dissuaded from participating there's no issue with them being excluded?

Also, a lot of "views and perspectives" are worthless. They would not survive the peer-editing. Do we have to white knight those positions of Wikipedia?

I don't see how this is relevant unless I were to assume that men's perspectives are generally worth more than women's.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

So as long as women aren't being overtly dissuaded from participating there's no issue with them being excluded.

I don't see how this is relevant unless I were to assume that men's perspectives are generally worth more than women's.

I asked this very question in the OP: what grounds do you have for calling it exclusion? I don't even see how you could suggest that there's a covert effort at dissuading female participation.

 

[2San]

So as long as women aren't being overtly dissuaded from participating there's no issue with them being excluded.

They aren't dissuaded. They just aren't willing to participate. Female participants are treated the same way as male participants.

 

[firehawk12]

Edit: Care to explain this?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Austen

There are probably more male academics who study Jane Austen than female ones, to be fair.

 

[Azih]

So as long as women aren't being overtly dissuaded from participating

Not to pile on, but how exactly is Wikipedia covertly dissuading women from participating?

 

[tiff]

I asked this very question in the OP: what grounds do you have for calling it exclusion? I don't even see how you could suggest that there's a covert effort at dissuading female participation.

Maybe it was the wrong word. All I meant is that they were not participating (or not included, thus excluded). I'm not suggesting that females are purposefully dissuaded from participating either overtly or covertly, but I don't think it would be unreasonable to suggest that there may be some underlying social force influencing their decision.

 

[firehawk12]

Not to pile on, but how exactly is Wikipedia covertly dissuading women from participating?

I still think it's a larger question of technological literacy. Somewhere down the line, fields and interests are gendered.

I mean, we have a thread here that claims that all men who become actors in America are "wussies", which is why only British men can play superheroes.

 

[The Technomancer]

I still think it's a larger question of technological literacy. Somewhere down the line, fields and interests are gendered.

But that's rapidly changing. I'm a Mechanical Engineering major, and the gender ratio in my classes is easily 60-40, sometimes closer to 50-50. Now there's a whole different discussion involving how increasingly valuable technical jobs are becoming there, but in terms of education things are evening up.

 

[firehawk12]

But that's rapidly changing. I'm a Mechanical Engineering major, and the gender ratio in my classes is easily 60-40, sometimes closer to 50-50. Now that's a whole different issue involving how valuable technical jobs are increasingly becoming, but in terms of education things are evening up.

Maybe. The last time I stepped into a CS course was a couple years ago and it was 95% male 5% female, and the girls felt the need to make a club for women just to try to foster some sense of community among female CS students.

I look at startups and most of them are headed/run by men. The big tech companies now are/were founded by men.

I think it's just a larger issue that "lolz, women don't like to edit Wikipedia".

 

[Fugu]

I still think it's a larger question of technological literacy. Somewhere down the line, fields and interests are gendered.

I mean, we have a thread here that claims that all men who become actors in America are "wussies", which is why only British men can play superheroes.

How is a field gendered? How do you eliminate the influence of readily apparent cultural bias in determining why certain fields are dominated by a specific gender?

 

[ZephyrFate]

Women are always the downtrodden minority and men always oppress them. When a woman fails, somewhere a man is responsible. All hail the female vagina.

I'm fairly certain this is PoliceCop brand exaggerated sarcasm, but gender inequality is still very much a problem.

However, I'm still totally prone to making sexist and/or misogynistic jokes, even around my best friend's girlfriend.

=[

 

[Azih]

Maybe it was the wrong word. All I meant is that they were not participating

Well, if someone is invited to a party and choose not to go then they're not being excluded so I do think it is the wrong word to use. Maybe they're just not interested?

 

[Fugu]

Well, if someone is invited to a party and choose not to go then they're not being excluded so I do think it is the wrong word to use. Maybe they're just not interested?

When she doesn't go to the party out of fear that she will, say, be the only woman there and will be stigmatized because of that then there is, at the very least, more to the story than simply "she's not interested".

 

[tiff]

Well, if someone is invited to a party and choose not to go then they're not being excluded so I do think it is the wrong word to use. Maybe they're just not interested?

Well I was thinking that if you choose not to do something then you exclude yourself from it.

But yeah.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I'm fairly certain this is PoliceCop brand exaggerated sarcasm, but gender inequality is still very much a problem.

I don't think any serious person believes the problem of gender inequality has been resolved. I just bristle at the idea that the relative sparsity of articles on designer shoes is indicative of some serious flaw in Wikipedia's model.

When she doesn't go to the party out of fear that she will, say, be the only woman there and will be stigmatized because of that then there is, at the very least, more to the story than simply "she's not interested".

But it's not like other women weren't invited.

 

[ZephyrFate]

I agree, this all seems like hyperbole.

 

[firehawk12]

How is a field gendered? How do you eliminate the influence of readily apparent cultural bias in determining why certain fields are dominated by a specific gender?

Well, to ironically use a wikipedia article to talk about an issue:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_computing

You can just look at numbers to see how gender, race and class effect various fields of study. Then it's really up to a sociologist to interpret those numbers.
Does cultural bias enter into a study of the numbers? Yeah, I would admit there's some bias there - I would guess that women are more likely to study conditions that inform why women don't want to study computer science because they feel a bit more invested in the issue. But that's unavoidable.

 

[The Technomancer]

I don't think any serious person believes the problem of gender inequality has been resolved. I just bristle at the idea that the relative sparsity of articles on designer shoes is indicative of some serious flaw in Wikipedia's model.

Honestly, she lost me as soon as she started talking about how because of its adherence on facts over personal opinion it was a "masculine institution" that women would find intimidating.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

Honestly, she lost me as soon as she started talking about how because of its adherence on facts over personal opinion it was a "masculine institution" that women would find intimidating.

Yeah, I think that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard on the issue of gender inequality.

Unrelated: has there always been someone "jumping" up and down in the background of your avatar? I never really noticed it before.

 

[The Technomancer]

Yeah, I think that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard on the issue of gender inequality.

Unrelated: has there always been someone "jumping" up and down in the background of your avatar? I never really noticed it before.

No, this is a mod of the avatar about a game called 999. I'm going to probably change it in a few weeks or so, I rotate through a few.

 

[Gaborn]

She wants more women to edit Wikipedia. Not sure why this is so difficult for people to grasp.

Are they being prevented from doing so in some way? Women are as free as anyone else is to edit wikipedia. This is like arguing for right handed people to start using their left hand as their dominant hand - no one is preventing them from doing so.