| |
Loading. Please Wait... 
|
  |
 WP Gang Banging : Why Such Negative Connotations For Women?, The Never-Ending Story : No Date Tonight |
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Sun 30th January 2011, 9:06pm)  Wikipedia tries to lessen gender gap on siteSt. Louis Post-DispatchIn 10 short years, Wikipedia has accomplished some remarkable goals. More than 3.5 million articles in English? Done. More than 250 different languages? ...and more »View the article Here comes the bullshit, boys and .... girls. QUOTE
Sue Gardner, the executive director of the foundation, has set a goal to raise the share of women contributors to 25 percent by 2015, but she is running up against the traditions of the computer world and an obsessive fact-loving realm that is male-dominated and not friendly to women.
Her effort is not diversity for diversity’s sake, she says.
“This is about wanting to ensure that the encyclopedia is as good as it could be,†Gardner said in interview Thursday. “The difference between Wikipedia and other editorially created products is that Wikipedians are not professionals, they are only asked to bring what they know.â€
“Everyone brings their crumb of information to the table,†she said. “If they are not at the table, we don’t benefit from their crumb.â€
With so many subjects represented — most everything has an article on Wikipedia — the gender disparity often shows up in terms of emphasis. A topic generally restricted to teenage girls, like friendship bracelets, can seem short at four paragraphs when compared with lengthy articles on something boys might favor, like toy soldiers or baseball cards, whose voluminous entry includes a detailed chronological history of the subject.
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.
Is a category with five Mexican feminist writers impressive, or embarrassing when compared with the 45 articles on characters in “The Simpsons�
(IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yecch.gif) Whereas, in the chemistry and math articles, the womyns are in there slugging it out 50:50. Not. Yeah, let's try to compare one pop culture idea to another. And then let's try for some misdirection at the end. QUOTE Gardner, citing an example that resonates with her personally, pointed to the Wikipedia entry for one of her favorite authors, Pat Barker, which was a mere three paragraphs when she came across it. Barker is an acclaimed writer of psychologically nuanced novels, many set during World War I. She is 67 and lives in England.
By contrast, Niko Bellic had an article about five times as long as Barker’s at the time. It’s a question of demographics: Bellic is a character in the video game Grand Theft Auto IV; he is 30 and a former soldier. The public is increasingly going to Wikipedia as a research source: According to a recent Pew survey, the percentage of all American adults who use the site to look for information increased to 42 percent in May 2010, from 25 percent in February 2007. This translates to 53 percent of adults who regularly use the Internet.
There we go. Gardner manages to name the one article on Wikipedia-- the ONLY article--- that she personally has substantially improved in her 4 years of editing. At 2 edits/week, it's the only one she's had enough edits to improve. QUOTE Jane Margolis, co-author of a book on sexism in computer science, “Unlocking the Clubhouse,†argues that Wikipedia is experiencing the same problems of the offline world, where women are less willing to assert their opinions in public. “In almost every space, who are the authorities, the politicians, writers for op-ed pages?†said Margolis, a senior researcher at the Institute for Democracy, Education and Access at the University of California, Los Angeles.
According to the OpEd Project, an organization based in New York that monitors the gender breakdown of contributors to “public thought-leadership forums,†a participation rate of roughly 85-to-15 percent, men to women, is common — whether members of Congress, or writers on The New York Times and Washington Post Op-Ed pages.
It would seem to be an irony that Wikipedia, where the amateur contributor is celebrated, is experiencing the same problem as forums that require expertise. But Catherine Orenstein, the founder and director of the OpEd Project, said many women lack the confidence to put forth their views. “When you are a minority voice, you begin to doubt your own competencies,†she said.
She said her group has persuaded women to express themselves by urging them to shift the focus “away from oneself — ‘do I know enough, am I bragging?’ — and turn the focus outward, thinking about the value of your knowledge.â€
Margolis said she was an advocate of recruiting women as a group to fields or forums where they are under-represented. That way, a solitary woman does not face the burden alone. But Ms. Margolis: on the internet, nobody knows what sex you are, unless you tell them. And here you are, telling us that anonymous women are intimidated into not participating on WP. Riiiight. Has it not occured to you that the atmosphere of WP is toxic to women, and that this is true even if they can wear a mask and not be known as female? Hmmm? And now for the lawyerly piece of misdirection. In a style that Jimbo and Godwin would be proud of, Gardner uses her single WP accomplishment to imply and suggest (without actually claiming it) that she's fighting the good fight, all alone, making substantial improvements all by her lonesome XX self: QUOTE
Gardner said that for now she is trying to use subtle persuasion and outreach through her foundation to welcome all newcomers to Wikipedia, rather than advocate for women-specific remedies like recruitment or quotas. “Gender is a huge hot-button issue for lots of people who feel strongly about it,†she said. “I am not interested in triggering those strong feelings.â€
Kat Walsh, a policy analyst and longtime Wikipedia contributor who was elected to the Wikimedia board, agreed that indirect initiatives would cause less unease in the Wikipedia community than more overt efforts.But she acknowledged the hurdles: “The big problem is that the current Wikipedia community is what came about by letting things develop naturally — trying to influence it in another direction is no longer the easiest path, and requires conscious effort to change.â€
Sometimes, conscious effort works. After seeing the short entry on Barker, Gardner added a substantial amount of background. During the same time, Niko Bellic’s page has grown by only a few sentences.
Arhhhhhhggggg!!! (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/pinch.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/furious.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tearinghairout.gif) Gardner, you're a goddamned deceptive corporate lackie marshmellow. If you think you can really change the world one lie at a time, then you and your fellow "feminists" still have a LOT of lessons to go. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/sick.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/yak.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Mon 31st January 2011, 4:52am) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Mon 31st January 2011, 1:35am)
Gardner, you're a goddamned deceptive corporate lackie marshmellow. If you think you can really change the world one lie at a time, then you and your fellow "feminists" still have a LOT of lessons to go.
Gee, Milton, why don't you try telling people who don't already know? Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) Because (unlike you this AM) I had no idea when I wrote that, that this news story was going to get copied endlessly. I'll see what I can do in various commentary sections. But as we both know, journalists are overworked/lazy (I guess you have to be a journalist to figure out which it REALLY is). But their environment and job just about guarantees they'll take ANY prepackaged BS which is sold in the form of press release or puff interview. The chance that any given journalist will go digging like Woodward and Bernstein to see how much Gardner really DOES write in WP, is just about nil in 2011. The story isn't that big and newspapers aren't what they were. So Sue can and will trot out the ONE AND ONLY article she's improved in 4 years, Potemkin style, and let the ignorant weenie journalistsgallant warriors of the 4th estate do the rest of the misdirection and prevarication FOR her. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Newsfeed @ Mon 31st January 2011, 4:12pm) Today's Lady News: Wikipedia Is A DickipediaThe Frisky (blog)Less than 15 percent of users who edit Wikipedia's content are women, which means the encyclopedia's entries are likely presenting a gender-skewed version ...View the article (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) This newspaper for women (ostensibly) says Wikipedia is a "Dickipedia" and says: "Get on-line and start editing, ladies." And presumably this is what WP's interests would look like if that happened: The Frisky: "Love, Life, Stars, Style." http://www.thefrisky.com/post/246-todays-lady-news-01311/The Good, The Bad & The Meh At The 2011 SAG Awards I’m A Feminist But I Think I Want To Date A More Traditional Dude 8 Ways To Meet Guys Offline 10 Sexual Practices We Were Totally Unaware Of Dior Haute Couture Brings The Glam To Spring/Summer 2011 Oscars James Franco The Frisky's 2011 Astro Guide Glee Polls: What Do You Think? Hotties news entertainment celebs parenting relationships sex guys style horoscopes money tv photos *One hundred mothers staged a “nurse-in†in a Montreal mall after a woman was kicked out of a children’s clothing store (a children’s clothing store!) for breastfeeding her five-month-old baby. *Chick-Fil-A in Pennsylvania donated sandwiches and brownies to a meeting of an anti-gay marriage group. *CNN’s new talk show host Piers Morgan defends himself for asking Condoleezza Rice why she’s a dried-up old spinster. (Okay, he didn’t use those words exactly.) *Woman Allegedly Mows Down Cousin After He Refuses Facebook Friend Request: (Today in “bitches be crazy!†news ...) Plus lots of articles about abortion and gay rights. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/hmmm.gif) The last making me seriously wonder what fraction of women on the net (when they do exist) are actually gay, so you guys are still out of luck. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/huh.gif) (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif) Any bets on whether "The Frisky" is actually owned by women? And edited in no small part by gay men? Teh good news about WP: When women take over WP, we're NOT going to have to trade article-after-article about Power Rangers, for new article-after-article about Frida Kahlo-- like Sue Gardner wants. Instead, we're going to get, well, things of interest to more average women. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) *Style by Jury: What Do You Think Of Anne Hathaway's Pattern-Mixing Marni Look? *Woman Claims Yogurt Sample Tasted Like Semen: Stop reading if you're still eating. (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/wink.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
| Alison |
|
Skinny Cow!
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,514
Joined:
From: Kalifornia
Member No.: 1,806
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
Blah. "The Frisky" is just another of those shitty celeb blogs that Turner started years ago, trying to compete with TMZ and Perez Hilton. Last I heard, they were all considered only mildly successful. They're just stupid. If you want to complain about something, complain about TMZ--possibly the sleaziest, trashiest website in existence today. Examples abound. And PS: there still is a "Dickipedia". |
|
|
|
|
|
| EricBarbour |
|
blah
Group: Regulars
Posts: 5,919
Joined:
Member No.: 5,066
|
And if all that wasn't repulsive enough...... here are the consummate nerds of Metafilter, arguing about the NYT article. Best comments: QUOTE Maybe women have lives.
posted by Segundus at 6:51 AM on January 31 [9 favorites] QUOTE I'm surprised that the reputation for general jackassery wikipedia editors have hasn't come up yet. My disinterest in editing wikipedia has more to do with my lack of interest in stepping into flame wars, having topics I think are important deleted, having my edits undone with snippy comments in talk, and so on than it does with my theoretical difficulty with using a wiki.
posted by immlass at 7:05 AM on January 31 [17 favorites] QUOTE Women already do this stuff, but we tend to do it in our own communities. You name just about any single media property with any kind of fanbase, and I can direct you to the Wiki, the Lexicon, the archive, and at least 2 major communities for them, all built by women.
Just because we're not building those things on Wikipedia doesn't mean we're not capable or interested. We are, and we're achieving them with perfectly elegant coding, scripting, and other technology.
I've tried to edit on Wikipedia, but I find the "This is my troll bridge, you may not pass!" attitude obnoxious. I can add all kinds of things to male YA authors' pages with minimal cites and no one says a word.
Whereas, every time I try to add a female YA author, or contribute to their pages, I invariably end up with some obnoxious gatekeeper complaining that my cites from Publisher's Weekly and School Library Journal aren't NEARLY enough, and besides, this author isn't SIGNIFICANT enough to have an entry, who cares if she published three books? They're not NOTEWORTHY. Meanwhile, 1-Book Nobody Dude's Wikipedia page is 14 printable pages long.
So, I wish Sue Gardner luck, I really do. But I have enough parity stuff I have to fight about; fighting to post on Wikipedia doesn't even make the top 100.
posted by headspace at 8:46 AM on January 31 [33 favorites] QUOTE My apologies then for misinterpreting your words, but we're talking about a gender imbalance in the Wikipedia editing community, so if by "general public" you mean men and women equally then the difficulty of the editing process can't be the cause.
Incorrect. It's simply reflecting the larger imbalance between the genders in technology enthusiasts... see the point made earlier about MIT comp sci students. Wikipedia is kept difficult to use and master for those who are not inclined to tackle steep technical and social learning curves - this includes almost everyone who isn't a computer hobbyist.
Consensus is not respected. Rules-lawyering and its attendant pecking-order macho male-aggressive bullshit is the order of the day. The environment is pretty hostile to newcomers and those who don't like long, protracted ego jousts to defend their "turf."
It's a culture designed to keep most women out.
posted by Slap*Happy at 9:51 AM on January 31 [4 favorites] This post has been edited by EricBarbour: |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
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? |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 4th February 2011, 2:32pm) Ah, Milton, still livin' der Traum … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) No, it's quite real. You can read Britannica, but not nearly as much will stay with you as if you concentrate hard enough to EDIT Britannica. I've probably learned as much from editing WP part time these last 4 years, as from a year of college. It's probably been approximately the same amount of my time (though distributed completely in otherwise recreational holes in my schedule), and cost me no more than the time (zero tuition). Some people learn by watching, some by listening, some by doing. Some by writing; guess what sort I am? Now, the opportunity-cost for this, was would I would have been doing otherwise. I could have been doing noble things like advancing human knowledge and writing papers and patents. The Ultimate Cat Litter Box ™ has yet to be invented. I could be volunteering as a T.A. at the local community college (wanna REALLY learn Newton's Laws?) Or I could have been vegging out in front of my TV watching Lie to Me and Bones.. Or I could have spent it scuba diving in the South Pacific, or other travel or social interaction with real people at home or near it, doing exercise, or something else to improve my life. It's all very nebulous, but if WP is an MMORPG, I'm pretty sure WP has been better for me than any OTHER MMORPG. It certainly beats hell out of Farmville. |
|
|
|
|
|
| SB_Johnny |
|
It wasn't me who made honky-tonk angels
Group: Regulars
Posts: 2,128
Joined:
Member No.: 8,272
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 4th February 2011, 7:06pm) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 4th February 2011, 2:32pm) Ah, Milton, still livin' der Traum … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) No, it's quite real. You can read Britannica, but not nearly as much will stay with you as if you concentrate hard enough to EDIT Britannica. I've probably learned as much from editing WP part time these last 4 years, as from a year of college. It's probably been approximately the same amount of my time (though distributed completely in otherwise recreational holes in my schedule), and cost me no more than the time (zero tuition). Some people learn by watching, some by listening, some by doing. Some by writing; guess what sort I am? Now, the opportunity-cost for this, was would I would have been doing otherwise. I could have been doing noble things like advancing human knowledge and writing papers and patents. The Ultimate Cat Litter Box ™ has yet to be invented. I could be volunteering as a T.A. at the local community college (wanna REALLY learn Newton's Laws?) Or I could have been vegging out in front of my TV watching Lie to Me and Bones.. Or I could have spent it scuba diving in the South Pacific, or other travel or social interaction with real people at home or near it, doing exercise, or something else to improve my life. It's all very nebulous, but if WP is an MMORPG, I'm pretty sure WP has been better for me than any OTHER MMORPG. It certainly beats hell out of Farmville. I had pretty much the same outlook and same experience for a couple years, but then got sucked into the "high politics" of WMF and have had a hard time recapturing it since then. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Milton Roe |
|
Known alias of J. Random Troll
Group: Regulars
Posts: 10,209
Joined:
Member No.: 5,156
|
QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 4th February 2011, 5:52pm) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 4th February 2011, 7:06pm) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 4th February 2011, 2:32pm) Ah, Milton, still livin' der Traum … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) No, it's quite real. You can read Britannica, but not nearly as much will stay with you as if you concentrate hard enough to EDIT Britannica. I've probably learned as much from editing WP part time these last 4 years, as from a year of college. It's probably been approximately the same amount of my time (though distributed completely in otherwise recreational holes in my schedule), and cost me no more than the time (zero tuition). Some people learn by watching, some by listening, some by doing. Some by writing; guess what sort I am? Now, the opportunity-cost for this, was would I would have been doing otherwise. I could have been doing noble things like advancing human knowledge and writing papers and patents. The Ultimate Cat Litter Box ™ has yet to be invented. I could be volunteering as a T.A. at the local community college (wanna REALLY learn Newton's Laws?) Or I could have been vegging out in front of my TV watching Lie to Me and Bones.. Or I could have spent it scuba diving in the South Pacific, or other travel or social interaction with real people at home or near it, doing exercise, or something else to improve my life. It's all very nebulous, but if WP is an MMORPG, I'm pretty sure WP has been better for me than any OTHER MMORPG. It certainly beats hell out of Farmville. I had pretty much the same outlook and same experience for a couple years, but then got sucked into the "high politics" of WMF and have had a hard time recapturing it since then. Try ignoring administration. It's always a good thing to do, when you see that people are administrating (giving orders) relative to that which they know absolutely nothing about. Again it's the authority of expertise vs. the authority of naked force. Unless you have a gun pointed at your head, or are being paid outrageously, whenever you meet that kind of "authority of force" situation, you just refuse to help people apply force. Of course they'll always sucker you in with horror tales of how, if you don't do it, they'll be forced to let snotnosed kids do it. But the truth is that they don't give a damn about the job except as it benefits them personally, and they're doing to allow kids to do some of it anyway, just as they did (and do) in Iraq. Don't be Pat Tillman. You don't have to go. It's not your patriotic duty. There is a difference between administering WP and writing for it, which somehow I cannot get across on WR. The process is not the content. The idiots in charge are not the same thing as the encyclopedia content that is produced. It's quite possible to contribute to one with out enabling the other (at least very much). It's sort of like donating to a veteran's charity while opposing a war. |
|
|
|
|
|
| Jon Awbrey |
|
Ï„á½° δΠμοι παθήματα μαθήματα γÎγονε
Group: Moderators
Posts: 6,783
Joined:
From: Meat Puppet Nation
Member No.: 5,619
|
QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 4th February 2011, 9:19pm) QUOTE(SB_Johnny @ Fri 4th February 2011, 5:52pm) QUOTE(Milton Roe @ Fri 4th February 2011, 7:06pm) QUOTE(Jon Awbrey @ Fri 4th February 2011, 2:32pm) Ah, Milton, still livin' der Traum … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) No, it's quite real. You can read Britannica, but not nearly as much will stay with you as if you concentrate hard enough to EDIT Britannica. I've probably learned as much from editing WP part time these last 4 years, as from a year of college. It's probably been approximately the same amount of my time (though distributed completely in otherwise recreational holes in my schedule), and cost me no more than the time (zero tuition). Some people learn by watching, some by listening, some by doing. Some by writing; guess what sort I am? Now, the opportunity-cost for this, was would I would have been doing otherwise. I could have been doing noble things like advancing human knowledge and writing papers and patents. The Ultimate Cat Litter Box™ has yet to be invented. I could be volunteering as a T.A. at the local community college (wanna REALLY learn Newton's Laws?) Or I could have been vegging out in front of my TV watching Lie to Me and Bones. Or I could have spent it scuba diving in the South Pacific, or other travel or social interaction with real people at home or near it, doing exercise, or something else to improve my life. It's all very nebulous, but if WP is an MMORPG, I'm pretty sure WP has been better for me than any OTHER MMORPG. It certainly beats hell out of Farmville. I had pretty much the same outlook and same experience for a couple years, but then got sucked into the "high politics" of WMF and have had a hard time recapturing it since then. Try ignoring administration. It's always a good thing to do, when you see that people are administrating (giving orders) relative to that which they know absolutely nothing about. Again it's the authority of expertise vs. the authority of naked force. Unless you have a gun pointed at your head, or are being paid outrageously, whenever you meet that kind of "authority of force" situation, you just refuse to help people apply force. Of course they'll always sucker you in with horror tales of how, if you don't do it, they'll be forced to let snotnosed kids do it. But the truth is that they don't give a damn about the job except as it benefits them personally, and they're doing to allow kids to do some of it anyway, just as they did (and do) in Iraq. Don't be Pat Tillman. You don't have to go. It's not your patriotic duty. There is a difference between administering WP and writing for it, which somehow I cannot get across on WR. The process is not the content. The idiots in charge are not the same thing as the encyclopedia content that is produced. It's quite possible to contribute to one with out enabling the other (at least very much). It's sort of like donating to a veteran's charity while opposing a war. Pay no attention to the boys in the brown shirts … Jon (IMG: smilys0b23ax56/default/bash.gif) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
| |
