Support NeoGAF

[Lesath]

A tad sensationalistic. From the study...

Of the sample, 126,701 (74.62%) respondents are male, while 42,191 (24.85%) are female. Readership is 63.11% male compared to 30.52% female. Extrapolated to a total population, we can suggest that males are more likely to read Wikipedia than females in the first place. There could be many reasons why, but they are not explored.

It gets trickier here, but the proportion of relative contribution, 12.64% female as opposed to the 86.73% male, does not reflect the willingness of females to contribute, since it has been skewed by the unequal sample sizes in the first place.

Here is a more relevant form of the data: 36.89% of the male sample contribute, 16.15% of the female sample contribute. Men still contribute more than women, but the willingness to contribute is not as grossly misrepresented as the articles would have you believe.

Of those who have not considered contributing, the important reasons are (they are not mutually exclusive): 23.06% do not know how, 23.68% are uncomfortable with editing others' work, 23.15% are uncomfortable with being corrected, and only 6.15% thought it to be a waste of time since edits would be overwritten. 3.58% said "other" and 3.82% said they did not know.

I do not know the specific percentages when responses are separated by gender, but it would certainly be more telling than the various assumptions within the articles.

To address one of the author's points, Niko Bellic has a larger page because the average 18 to 30 year old that contributes to Wikipedia is probably part of the population of millions of people that played that game, as opposed to the few handfuls of thousands that give a fuck about Pat Barker.

And really, if women were so uncomfortable with the heated argumentative atmosphere of the Wiki community, I would doubt they find much contention in "feminine" articles about friendship bracelets, shitty dramas, and fashion. I cannot really fathom both of these supposed reasons coexisting.

Finally, I disagree with the notion that truth is a democracy: if it was, we would all be learning about Creationism in high schools.

EDIT: Clarity.

 

[VelvetMouth]

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

I'm going to dissagree with that. You touched on Jane Austen. The biggest online JA communities are run by women. The Republic of Pemberley, the go to site for anything Austen, run entirely by women. These are everything from history databases to fiction sites of which there are many.

A good portion of The West Wing communities, run by women. Teenage girls are behind some of the biggest Twilight sites online. Women are heavily into blogging. Cooking blogs, gardening, decorating, gossip.

Women might not be editing Wikipedia entries but I hardly believe it's because they lack technological skill. Lacking interest, yes. From my experience online, men tend to nerd out far more than women do. In some of the more male orientated communities I participate in, knowledge is power one can wield over others. Arguing among men is far more prevalent, and also the need to prove oneself far more knowledgable over a subject. I can see how men enjoy editing Wikipedia more than women, it's another chance for them to show their intelectual supperiority. Not all men are like this but I'm willing to bet that a lot of men who spend their times editing Wikipedia have a bit of comic book guy in them.

 

[Fugu]

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.

Saying that computer science is gendered implies that there is something about computer science that makes it intrinsically more appealing to males; presenting statistics that represent that more males are in computer science does not at all substantiate that argument. There is nothing about computer science that prevents a woman from studying it as well as a man, so the disparity in the amount of men and women studying it must be entirely distinct from the field.

As for your second argument, I am interpreting it as "more women study women's studies because they are women". Does that make men computers?

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

But the invitation is irrelevant if none of them accept because all of them presume based on precedent that none of the other ones will.

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I think most of the responses in this thread are true, but mostly beside the point. To wit:

Just seems like a difference between the genders. There are no barriers. Just sign up & edit something.

At least, I don't think the original article's intention was to imply that wikipedia is being sexist by intentionally excluding women. Most of you are probably correct that the disparity comes about from things intrinsic to wikipedia rather than any intentional sexism. But we still have the problem of an increasingly respected source of information reflecting the ideas and interests of a narrow segment of society.

As has been brought up, it's not like the gender gap is the only problem worth stating (I'm willing to bet wikipedia doesn't have much diversity in race, age, or class, either), and this is a problem with most encyclopedias, but it's still worth considering.

I will simply say that the fact that a professor is complaining something is too neutral for women simply reinforces my opinions.

>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.

And that's men's fault how? Men don't watch SATC, but it's not like anyone is actively going out of their way to sabotage an article on it. But *of course* it's a man's fault if a woman can't be bothered writing something or taking part in an activity.

Good fucking Lord.

I don't think anyone has claimed that it's men's fault. You're projecting.

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.

I'm not so sure. Are there any aspects of the wikipedia model that could be changed to make for more contributions from voices that are rarely heard there? While I'm sure it wasn't designed with the intention of marginalizing some groups, that doesn't mean that it couldn't be better structured.

I also think you underestimate the value of having different perspectives on wikipedia. It might have the goal of cataloging every piece of human knowledge, but surely more knowledge and more perspectives are a good thing?

 

[tiff]

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.

Right handed people don't write with their left hand because it's uncomfortable and it never turns out well.

What are you saying about women, huh!?

 

[2San]

Right handed people don't write with their left hand because it's uncomfortable and it never turns out well.

What are you saying about women, huh!?

Maybe just maybe women like to do something else with their free time? Are you suggesting that if it wasn't for social pressures men and women would like to do the exact same thing?

 

[Fugu]

Maybe just maybe women like to do something else with their free time? Are you suggesting that if it wasn't for social pressures men and women would like to do the exact same thing?

No, because that hinges on behaviour being entirely determined by gender. This cannot be true and that is evidenced by the 15% of women who contribute to Wikipedia despite the statistics.

 

[Korey]

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.

Who said there was anyone preventing them from doing so? Maybe you don't understand what the word "want" means?

 

[2San]

No, because that hinges on behaviour being entirely determined by gender. This cannot be true and that is evidenced by the 15% of women who contribute to Wikipedia despite the statistics.

Should have said in women in general. While I don't behaviour is entirely determined by gender. I do think it plays a significant role.

The Female and Male brain show significant difference in the way they think.

 

[Gaborn]

Right handed people don't write with their left hand because it's uncomfortable and it never turns out well.

What are you saying about women, huh!?

That if women wanted to edit Wikipedia they would do so. The fact that boys can sign up for ballet lessons if they want to does not mean many are going to want to do so, and it's not overly problematic that there are fewer men than women in that field.

Who said there was anyone preventing them from doing so? Maybe you don't understand what the word "want" means?

I understand want, I'm less clear on what any proposed solution should be. Women are free to join, no one should have to beg them to do so.

 

[Korey]

That if women wanted to edit Wikipedia they would do so. The fact that boys can sign up for ballet lessons if they want to does not mean many are going to want to do so, and it's not overly problematic that there are fewer men than women in that field.

I understand want, I'm less clear on what any proposed solution should be. Women are free to join, no one should have to beg them to do so.

The proposed solution is that lots of women read this article or find out about this problem and go edit wikipedia on their own initiative.

You respond like someone is accusing/begging/blaming/complaining about someone or a group of people of something, when all the author is doing is highlighting a problem, which is that Wikipedia is skewed towards a certain perception - which is true. If more women read the article and are like "Hey, didn't know it was that unbalanced, maybe I'll give it a try" then mission accomplished.

 

[Haly]

She touches on a few interesting points and then the article seems to suddenly drop off.

If a man wrote that article it'd be a 5000 word essay complete with graphs, charts, citations, further readings and opposing arguments where the author posits hypothetical counter-arguments to himself in order to strengthen his position.

Also I like how she refers to youtube's comments sections as "passionate debate". Passionate I'll grant but debate it isn't. It is more akin to passionate poo flinging, which is only a single method of debate and not a very effective one at that.

 

[Satyamdas]

The proposed solution is that lots of women read this article or find out about this problem and go edit wikipedia on their own initiative.

You respond like someone is accusing/begging/blaming/complaining about someone or a group of people of something, when all the author is doing is highlighting a problem, which is that Wikipedia is skewed towards a certain perception - which is true. If more women read the article and are like "Hey, didn't know it was that unbalanced, maybe I'll give it a try" then mission accomplished.

Except the disparity is NOT a problem. It's someone looking for a problem where none exists. Wikipedia not accepting women contributors, or not accepting entries because they are related to women's interests? That's a fucking problem.

"Hey I didn't know it was that imbalanced, maybe I'll give it a try" is an entirely misguided view of the point of a fucking encyclopedia in the first place. It isn't a game you need to try. It's not a place you go to "fix" some perceived societal gender imbalance, which is what this hypothetical person would be doing as a result of "trying it" after reading this bullshit article. You are implying that she is of value to Wikipedia simply because of her gender, rather than whether she has any knowledgeable additions to make or cogent arguments for removal of material.

So long as the system accepts contributions from and articles relating to women, there is nothing that needs to be "rebalanced". The balance will be shifted if and when women decide to contribute more, but to act like the current ratio is somehow a "problem" is just a bunch of alarmist nonsense.

 

[charlequin]

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.

Well, define "serious." I think gender and cultural inequalities in participation could well be due to a flaw that could be fixed or at least improved via systemic tweaking. Or it could be purely a result of external cultural factors that Wikipedia has no control over -- that's the question I find interesting here.

If a man wrote that article it'd be a 5000 word essay complete with graphs, charts, citations, further readings and opposing arguments where the author posits hypothetical counter-arguments to himself in order to strengthen his position.

Please don't do this.

 

[charlequin]

Except the disparity is NOT a problem.

It's been addressed several times in the thread why it's a problem. Since Wikipedia's goal is to be as informative as possible on as many topics as possible, and since people's interest in and knowledge of different topics varies by gender (regardless of what factors cause this to be true), Wikipedia is worse at its job the narrower the group of editors contributing to the site is.

Again, this issue has nothing to do with sexism. It is not a problem for the women who aren't contributing; it's a problem for Wikipedia.

 

[Korey]

Except the disparity is NOT a problem. It's someone looking for a problem where none exists. Wikipedia not accepting women contributors, or not accepting entries because they are related to women's interests? That's a fucking problem.

"Hey I didn't know it was that imbalanced, maybe I'll give it a try" is an entirely misguided view of the point of a fucking encyclopedia in the first place. It isn't a game you need to try. It's not a place you go to "fix" some perceived societal gender imbalance, which is what this hypothetical person would be doing as a result of "trying it" after reading this bullshit article. You are implying that she is of value to Wikipedia simply because of her gender, rather than whether she has any knowledgeable additions to make or cogent arguments for removal of material.

So long as the system accepts contributions from and articles relating to women, there is nothing that needs to be "rebalanced". The balance will be shifted if and when women decide to contribute more, but to act like the current ratio is somehow a "problem" is just a bunch of alarmist nonsense.

It's a "problem" because the encyclopedia is less comprehensive as it could be.

Holy shit. I'm not quite sure what you're going on about. You're the one using phrases like "societal gender imbalance", "rebalanced", and "current ratio". It's not about men versus women, it's about an encyclopedia being incomplete due to less female contributors. You could swap "female" with any other group of underrepresented people.

 

[Lard]

Maybe women just realised SATC is crap.

 

[Satyamdas]

It's been addressed several times in the thread why it's a problem. Since Wikipedia's goal is to be as informative as possible on as many topics as possible, and since people's interest in and knowledge of different topics varies by gender (regardless of what factors cause this to be true), Wikipedia is worse at its job the narrower the group of editors contributing to the site is.

Again, this issue has nothing to do with sexism. It is not a problem for the women who aren't contributing; it's a problem for Wikipedia.

This idea that Wikipedia is "worse at its job" because of fewer women contributors is born out where, exactly? In shorter episode summaries for Sex and the City compared to the Sopranos? Is that the extent of our evidence? Do you have any issues or topics which are not readily available on Wikipedia which should be, and which are absent due to less women contributors? I'm interested in seeing the manifestation of this "poor job" Wikipedia is doing, the reason for which is less women contributors. Unless of course, Jimmy Choo articles being too short is all this really boils down to, in which case I would be hard pressed to buy your "problem".

It's a "problem" because the encyclopedia is less comprehensive as it could be.

So what issue or topic is being ignored, that more female contributors would fix? Please detail these issues which demonstrate Wikipedia isn't comprehensive enough.

 

[Atrus]

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).

It is not my place to act for a group I'm not a part of, it's up to the participating group to do their own work and mine not to inhibit them when reasonable arguments are put forth.

I'm not sure where I indicated 'defined female traits' unless you're taking the following "Women are made to be more fearful, more risk averse, more reliant on others, more agreeable" as something that is definitively female.

I merely stated at the end that there is polarization involved in gender identity, in that one is made to choose between a weak-willed woman or strong like a man, rather than strong like a woman. This is the extension of the handicap where one goes from a position of weakness to another position of seeming strength by just piling onto the longstanding negativity of being associated with being female.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Wikipedia, however, doesn’t allow for the non-assertive style preferred by many women. Rather, it enforces a “neutral point of view” policy, which favors a more masculine style of communication — just the facts, ma’am. And of course the creation and editing of knowledge repositories, as evidenced in the tradition of print encyclopedias, has always been dominated by men.

The encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, combined with its rigid adherence to a “neutral” point of view, are factors that might make women less inclined to contribute.

This is a strange comment to make. So according to this professor, apparently one of the biggest things holding Wikipedia back from more female participation is that it strives to be objective?

 

[Lard]

So what issue or topic is being ignored, that more female contributors would fix? Please detail these issues which demonstrate Wikipedia isn't comprehensive enough.

Shoes?

 

[Rocket Punch]

Why is this an issue? Who's fault is it- if anybody's - that more men take the time to record history and classify information than women do? Who's holding back women from doing it? It is what it is.

 

[scorcho]

the implication that women aren't attuned to offering objective perspectives is a bit, odd, isn't it?

 

[thesoapster]

Why is this an issue? Who's fault is it- if anybody's - that more men take the time to record history and classify information than women do? Who's holding back women from doing it? It is what it is.

Exactly. They're complaining about inaction but...it cannot really be pegged on anyone but those who are not doing (women). There is nothing stopping them. What's next? Not enough women play FPS games?

 

[neoism]

Ain't no girls gonna be on wiki editing shit when they are on Facebook 24/7...

there I fucking said it...

 

[Dan Yo]

Not all men are like this but I'm willing to bet that a lot of men who spend their times editing Wikipedia have a bit of comic book guy in them.

I don't really understand the justification of "well ya more men contribute to and read wikipedia, but it's okay because they're nerds anyway, and who wants to be a nerd? Am I right, ladies?".

I've seen it a couple times in this thread. What is a nerd anyway? Is there a reason to try and turn the prominence of men on wikipedia into a negative for men?

 

[Count Dookkake]

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

That's not what "excluded" means.

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

It means that crying about the need for multiple voices ignores the fact that many of those voices will be laughably wrong about a given subject. We don't need multiple voices, we need useful ones.

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

I don't really understand the justification of "well ya more men contribute to and read wikipedia, but it's okay because they're nerds anyway, and who wants to be a nerd? Am I right, ladies?".

I've seen it a couple times in this thread. What is a nerd anyway? Is there a reason to try and turn the prominence of men on wikipedia into a negative for men?

It is because clueless guys are pretending to be gender neutral by belittling Wikipedia. Since the criticisms are kind of on a shaky foundation, the clueless guys are even more toolish than usual.

 

[Atrus]

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

I don't give a shit. At the end of the day I'm not the one whose opportunities and capabilities are limited by the world's perception of my gender.

I'm merely pointing out how insignificant your existence at large is made to be. Your station in life as a woman is literally beneath mine and I didn't have to do a thing. You're still a second class citizen. If you're more than content with that kind of lowered expectation of existence then good for you because you're not part of the women of significance I'm thinking about.

As a man, I just think myself lucky that I didn't waste my only existence being born as a woman based on what actually happens around the world. However, I keep thinking about what would happen if I had daughters because that would put me into the sphere of having to act as a father. That consideration is not a small one and it poses many obstacles.

 

[Feep]

If a given park was 85% male, it would be accurate to say that the parkgoers do not fully represent society, and I can also guarantee you that those responsible for maintaining the park would look into why there is a gender gap and how they can close it. So... analogy backfire?

Not really. Assuming it was not a park filled with beer fountains and football trees, no one would ever implicate the park planners as part of the problem, nor am I convinced of your "guarantee" that they would attempt to "fix it" somehow, not that I really know how that's possible, other than blatantly pandering to stereotypes that might be seen as offensive and insensitive (e.g. pony rides).

What would they even do at Wikipedia? Make all the pages bright pink? = P

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

I don't give a shit. At the end of the day I'm not the one whose opportunities and capabilities are limited by the world's perception of my gender.

I'm merely pointing out how insignificant your existence at large is made to be. Your station in life as a woman is literally beneath mine and I didn't have to do a thing. You're still a second class citizen. If you're more than content with that kind of lowered expectation of existence then good for you because you're not part of the women of significance I'm thinking about.

As a man, I just think myself lucky that I didn't waste my only existence being born as a woman based on what actually happens around the world. However, I keep thinking about what would happen if I had daughters because that would put me into the sphere of having to act as a father. That consideration is not a small one and it poses many obstacles.

rofl

 

[theignoramus]

I have on occasion fixed spelling mistakes, added helpful hyperlinks and updated events that had occurred after the article was updated to reflect that fact.

I am also a man. Sorry womens!

The main issue I have with the article itself is that getting into 'wars' on the talk page is all done pretty anonymously and there is no 'negative evaluation' of women participating because of it.

I got into a serious talk page war on Wiki`s Gulf War entry. It ended by us having to track down the author of a 20 year article and getting him to personally attest to the authenticity of an Newsweek article that I`d posted on Scribd. serious business.

 

[BloodySinner]

Men like trivia, knowing facts and showing off that they know these facts. Figures that most wikipedia editors would be male.

Maybe they're just more knowledgeable?

 

[Snowman Prophet of Doom]

I don't give a shit. At the end of the day I'm not the one whose opportunities and capabilities are limited by the world's perception of my gender.

I'm merely pointing out how insignificant your existence at large is made to be. Your station in life as a woman is literally beneath mine and I didn't have to do a thing. You're still a second class citizen. If you're more than content with that kind of lowered expectation of existence then good for you because you're not part of the women of significance I'm thinking about.

As a man, I just think myself lucky that I didn't waste my only existence being born as a woman based on what actually happens around the world. However, I keep thinking about what would happen if I had daughters because that would put me into the sphere of having to act as a father. That consideration is not a small one and it poses many obstacles.

Women certainly still face hardships, but to say that they are still "second class" citizens is probably a pretty massive overstatement.

 

[Satyamdas]

Someone please recognize the large amount of sand I have in my vagina!

The bitterness is tangible. I especially liked the desperate condescension, although that pretty much negates all the pseudo-feminist mumbojumbo you were peddling earlier. Interesting how you still seem to be condemning the patriarchy for women's terrible plight yet can't help but to harshly patronize, as if that'll show everyone that you've still got a pair and aren't afraid to use em. Don't think it worked, though.

 

[Rocket Punch]

I have a dick, in fact that's all I am.

That's interesting. You speak like someone who didn't come out of a woman's womb. Kudos to you, member of the superior gender!

 

[WrathOfOtaibah]

Women certainly still face hardships, but to say that they are still "second class" citizens is probably a pretty massive overstatement.

He's an idiot who is just reciting his meager Intro to Sociology knowledge.

 

[theignoramus]

I can see how more female editors would increase the overall pool of editors and thus generate more activity, but activity doesnt necessarily equal high quality editing and content. How do we know that more editors equals quality assurance or that more editors wont just mean more noise and contested content?

 

[faceless007]

This idea that Wikipedia is "worse at its job" because of fewer women contributors is born out where, exactly? In shorter episode summaries for Sex and the City compared to the Sopranos?

If that were true (and I don't know if it is), why should The Sopranos deserve more space on Wikipedia than Sex and the City? Are you saying the interests of women are inherently less deserving of detailed articles than the interests of men?

Unless of course, Jimmy Choo articles being too short is all this really boils down to, in which case I would be hard pressed to buy your "problem".

So you readily admit the only articles you think deserve to be on Wikipedia are the ones of personal interest to you, and anything of stereotypical female interest, no matter how objectively notable in the world at large, doesn't.

Wikipedia may not be sexist, but you sure seem to be.

 

[Suairyu]

Women certainly still face hardships, but to say that they are still "second class" citizens is probably a pretty massive overstatement.

Definitely. But if you tone down his romanticism, he is entirely correct in asserting he's lucky to be born male.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

If that were true (and I don't know if it is), why should The Sopranos deserve more space on Wikipedia than Sex and the City? Are you saying the interests of women are inherently less deserving of detailed articles than the interests of men?


So you readily admit the only articles you think deserve to be on Wikipedia are the ones of personal interest to you, and anything of stereotypical female interest, no matter how objectively notable in the world at large, doesn't.

Wikipedia may not be sexist, but you sure seem to be.

I think your straw man is on fire.

He's not saying that The Sopranos is more deserving of space than Sex and the City, nor is he saying that the interests of women are less deserving of detailed articles--nothing he said should give you any reason to assume that. His reasonable assertion, I think, is that the fact that The Sopranos' article is more detailed than that of Sex and the City is not indicative of some significant flaw in wikipedia's model.

 

[Like the hat?]

I dont care if it's men or women editing the articles, I just want the facts to be as accurate as possible.

 

[faceless007]

nor is he saying that the interests of women are less deserving of detailed articles--nothing he said should give you any reason
to assume that.

How the hell are you reading "Unless of course, Jimmy Choo articles being too short is all this really boils down to, in which case I would be hard pressed to buy your "problem""? Seems like a pretty explicit statement that articles on fashion being less detailed is not a problem in his view.

 

[Igo]

If that were true (and I don't know if it is), why should The Sopranos deserve more space on Wikipedia than Sex and the City? Are you saying the interests of women are inherently less deserving of detailed articles than the interests of men?

If those articles are driving less traffic then perhaps that's the case.

 

[Satyamdas]

If that were true (and I don't know if it is), why should The Sopranos deserve more space on Wikipedia than Sex and the City? Are you saying the interests of women are inherently less deserving of detailed articles than the interests of men?

No, that is not what I am saying at all. The article linked to in the OP used both of those examples as evidence that not enough women are contributing to Wikipedia. It's not a matter of one thing being more "deserving" of space than another, it's that thus far women have not bothered to expound on subjects which one would assume appeal to them (i.e. Sex and the City or fashion designers bios), and this is being ridiculously used as evidence that there is a problem with Wikipedia's system of contribution.

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.

If some woman out there wanted to write big long summaries for each episode of Sex and the City, they could do so and then submit them. No one is saying they don't deserve to have just as much space as "men's" topics.

So you readily admit the only articles you think deserve to be on Wikipedia are the ones of personal interest to you, and anything of stereotypical female interest, no matter how objectively notable in the world at large, doesn't.

Wikipedia may not be sexist, but you sure seem to be.

Even the most famous fashion designers — Manolo Blahnik or Jimmy Choo — get but a handful of paragraphs.

So you readily admit that you lack even the most basic reading comprehension skills.

The article in the OP is the one which mentioned Jimmy Choo's bio being short as evidence of a problem with the gender ratio of Wikipedia's contributors, and I'm saying if that's the best proof we have, that it's pretty goddamn weak. I've asked for examples of topics not present on Wikipedia, which should be, and which are lacking as a result of not enough female contribution, and haven't heard any mentioned yet. Nowhere at all did I say that I only want articles there which appeal to me.

But kudos for throwing out the sexist label without having a fucking clue as to what you are talking about, though.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

How the hell are you reading "Unless of course, Jimmy Choo articles being too short is all this really boils down to, in which case I would be hard pressed to buy your "problem""? Seems like a pretty explicit statement that articles on fashion being less detailed is not a problem in his view.

Did you read the original article?

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.

It's not clear that fashion articles being less detailed should be considered a problem. But with respect to the original article, the point is that the disparity in length of articles referred to in that quote should not form the basis for asserting that wikipedia is fundamentally flawed.

 

[faceless007]

Dammit. You're both right. I had only skimmed the article and missed that it used those examples, so I assumed he had come up with them.

My apologies, Satyamdas.

 

[Satyamdas]

No worries, mate.

 

[Atrus]

Women certainly still face hardships, but to say that they are still "second class" citizens is probably a pretty massive overstatement.

Women comprise half the total world population and their station is confined namely to their gender roles that allow them to be exploited as commodities. If we're restricted to only considering the Western regions then yes, I'd agree but populations aren't focused in the West.

You not only have gender preference for males over females from culture, a longstanding negativity on the sex stemming from tradition and ideology, and the exploitation of the impoverished, for which women form the greatest numbers. Something like domestic violence is even ingrained into various cultures due to the belief that men are the arbiters over their women.

While I don't expect equality to mean 100% similar, there is a level of stature between the genders that hasn't been reached. It's not even in the mid-stages of development since social unrest and instability always disrupts progress and seems to be only contingent on that being the case.

 

[Atrus]

That's interesting. You speak like someone who didn't come out of a woman's womb. Kudos to you, member of the superior gender!

What does this have to do with anything? My mother is weak and that weakness is tied to the traditional roles she has enforced on her. This extends to my grandmothers and my aunts because men have precedence over them and have limited their ability to action on their lives.

My mother took a beating any time she and my father had a fight. It was my back that was the shield, it was I that ended things, not her. Like a great many in her situation, she was too mentally weak and too afraid to stand up for herself. In fact, even now she has a quote of hers on Facebook that mentions how the best option is to simply be silent and go along with the situation to avoid more trouble. That is nothing but a weak ideology but one that many women find themselves beholden to, with children and culture their yolks.

This is in addition to the religious animosity her in-laws showed her by taking me away soon after birth and refusing her access. Yes, she may have endured a lot but she is not a strong individual. Her entire life is one of low expectation and achievement. It is empty of the passion of humanity, willpower and drive that is expected of our potential.

The same goes for my aunts where one husband can't even be bothered to pour himself a glass of orange juice lying an inch away from a glass. In his life, he is king, and so needs to only point to a glass to have his slave (my aunt) fill it.

Another had to give up her much better paying position as a manager to take care of children so that her lazy husband can pay for the bills working as a clerk. She is the best treated one because he's too laid back to do anything.

That's at least significantly better then the husband of another giving me a lecture of how I should get married and get a woman pregnant because that's what she needs to feel like a woman.

I have 7 or 8 aunts on that side of the family and none lead lives that are anything beyond traditional gender roles that are reinforced by culture and force, and this is irrespective of income level. But it doesn't end there, it goes on with cousins and the rights of their husbands. It goes on to the general population in the country, in the continent, and frankly throughout the rest of the world.

They are placed beneath weak men in terms of worth and there's plenty of them to go around thanks to influences that have not been killed off. So when we talk about gender equality, it's not even close. The ability to vote or do things that men do is just a small incidental point that is supposed to open the way to the end, it is not THE end.