QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Fri 4th February 2011, 11:09am)
What Makes Wikipedia Special?The AtlanticI've got a question about Wikipedia and the concern expressed in so many places that only 13 percent of its contributors are women:
...View the article QUOTE
Like most people, there are some gender disparities that I find troubling, and others I don't much care about. I wonder how others decide when they care, because it seems to me that people care about Wikipedia, even though its general characteristics make it seem a lot like the things we don't normally care about. There aren't any barriers to entry blocking women who want to participate, there isn't an ugly history of discriminating against women, being a Wikipedia contributor isn't a high status position or a proving ground for other high status positions, the women foregoing participation aren't missing out on career opportunities or sacrificing future financial security, we aren't intuitively aware of the disparity, no one particularly complains that Wikipedia entries are biased against women in any way, a group of concerned volunteers could easily add articles on any subjects the mostly male club of contributors is missing...
(IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) The writer has a point, no?
The only thing he hasn't addressed, is that editing Wikipedia heavily is an education in and of itself, if you choose your subjects wisely. There's no better way to really learn a subject than having to "teach it." Writing about it cogently amounts to having to teach it.
I have the feeling that most of the people writing about the benefits of editing WP (or lack thereof) have missed
a large chunk of the reason behind requiring students to write "research papers," as a part of education. It isn't just to teach students how to write (though that's part of it). It also makes the student learn the subject, if they're not just copying somebody else's single essay. (IMG:
smilys0b23ax56/default/blink.gif) Yeah, how's THAT for a novel thought?