“Wikipedia Is Sexist�, Elisa • The French Exit Options

[Jon Awbrey]

Wikipedia has been on my mind lately, after hearing the statistic passed around a week or so ago that something like 87% of Wikipedia contributors/editors are male. This didn't surprise me in the least, and initially made no impression on me whatsoever. A few days later the obvious consequences of this dawned on me: Wikipedia is sexist. Of course this affects the content. Of course this bias trickles down and bleeds into the articles in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. I wouldn't want to read a magazine if only 1 out of 10 of its editors/contributors were women. Especially if the whole point of the magazine was to present objective, unbiased information in an encyclopedic fashion.

Maybe I'll boycott Wikipedia.

� Elisa Gabbert • 22 Feb 2011

[Jon Awbrey]

I've moved this to the BLP Forum in hopes of getting attention from someone who can do the decent thing about it.

Jon Awbrey

[HRIP7]

I've moved this to the BLP Forum in hopes of getting attention from someone who can do the decent thing about it.

Jon Awbrey

I am not sure how Gabbert views the prospect of having a Wikipedia biography, but I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.

[Somey]

...I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.

Drugs? Alcohol? Delusional psychosis? Or are you just having us on?

The thing we all have to understand here is that Fred, in his own mind, believes himself to be perfectly justified in being a complete misogynist, due to certain experiences he's had in the past in which women were, shall we say, directly involved. This incident seems to indicate that time has not healed Fred's wounds - they're as fresh and painful as ever, and he still wants revenge. And why else would he be so drawn to Wikipedia?

Still, it looks like they might delete the article, so at least there's that. Nevertheless, if there were ever a moment when Jimbo and Sue Gardner should be putting their money where their mouths are, and working behind the scenes to get someone banned for a very long time, this is probably it - doing that one thing would be worth at least a hundred bloviating blog posts about how WP isn't "welcoming" to women.

[carbuncle]

...I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.

Drugs? Alcohol? Delusional psychosis? Or are you just having us on?

The thing we all have to understand here is that Fred, in his own mind, believes himself to be perfectly justified in being a complete misogynist, due to certain experiences he's had in the past in which women were, shall we say, directly involved. This incident seems to indicate that time has not healed Fred's wounds - they're as fresh and painful as ever, and he still wants revenge. And why else would he be so drawn to Wikipedia?

I'm undecided on this one. While my first thoughts were that this was Bauder using WP as a revenge platform, after HRIP7's comments I took a look at some of the comments Bauder has made on the gendergap mailing list. Ignoring that "category:women in sexually provocative poses" nonsense on Commons, he seems to be saying the right things in the posts that I sampled. I think it is possible that he created the bio because he agrees that WP is biased, not as an attack on the blogger. It should still be deleted, though.

Still, it looks like they might delete the article, so at least there's that. Nevertheless, if there were ever a moment when Jimbo and Sue Gardner should be putting their money where their mouths are, and working behind the scenes to get someone banned for a very long time, this is probably it - doing that one thing would be worth at least a hundred bloviating blog posts about how WP isn't "welcoming" to women.

Only a hundred? I don't think any amount of bloviating blog posts will have an effect on WP unless they inspire people to take action there. Perhaps this is a case of having your cake and eating it too - Gardner gets to say that she doesn't agree with it but doesn't have to do anything that will drive away editors.

[Jon Awbrey]

… I am pretty sure that Fred didn't do it out of malice.

Drugs? Alcohol? Delusional psychosis? Or are you just having us on?

The thing we all have to understand here is that Fred, in his own mind, believes himself to be perfectly justified in being a complete misogynist, due to certain experiences he's had in the past in which women were, shall we say, directly involved. This incident seems to indicate that time has not healed Fred's wounds � they're as fresh and painful as ever, and he still wants revenge. And why else would he be so drawn to Wikipedia?

I'm undecided on this one. While my first thoughts were that this was Bauder using WP as a revenge platform, after HRIP7's comments I took a look at some of the comments Bauder has made on the gendergap mailing list. Ignoring that "category:women in sexually provocative poses" nonsense on Commons, he seems to be saying the right things in the posts that I sampled. I think it is possible that he created the bio because he agrees that WP is biased, not as an attack on the blogger. It should still be deleted, though.

Still, it looks like they might delete the article, so at least there's that. Nevertheless, if there were ever a moment when Jimbo and Sue Gardner should be putting their money where their mouths are, and working behind the scenes to get someone banned for a very long time, this is probably it - doing that one thing would be worth at least a hundred bloviating blog posts about how WP isn't "welcoming" to women.

Only a hundred? I don't think any amount of bloviating blog posts will have an effect on WP unless they inspire people to take action there. Perhaps this is a case of having your cake and eating it too - Gardner gets to say that she doesn't agree with it but doesn't have to do anything that will drive away editors.

The thing that All Normal People understand here � people who haven't spent so much time in the orbit of Wikipedia that they've forgotten what their life before was like � is that pinning a target to someone's back or scrawling someone's name on on a toilet stall wall is ipso facto a hostile act.

Jon (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Kelly Martin]

The thing that All Normal People understand here � people who haven't spent so much time in the orbit of Wikipedia that they've forgotten what their life before was like � is that pinning a target to someone's back or scrawling someone's name on on a toilet stall wall is ipso facto a hostile act.

Of course, most Wikipediots are unwilling to accept that Wikipedia is the internet's equivalent to a toilet stall wall.

Another factor to keep in mind is that many many Wikipedians have been the targets of bullying in the past, and (as The Big Bang Theory pointed out earlier this season) it's terribly easy, and terribly common, for bullying victims to become the bully themselves as soon as they get even the slightest smidgeon of power.