

Women make up only 13% of Wikipedia contributors - jhust
http://stuckk.net/post/177530403/why-so-few-women-contributing-to-wikipedia

======
ivanstojic
That's hardly surprising. Actual people make up only 26% of Wikipedia editors,
the rest are rabid deletionist AIs.

~~~
roundsquare
According to the WSJ article:
[http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/08/31/only-13-of-
wikipedia-...](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/08/31/only-13-of-wikipedia-
contributors-are-women-study-says/)

This was a survey, so this is 13% of people, not AIs.

~~~
chaosmachine
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joke>

~~~
roundsquare
Blah, sorry. Thats the result of not having enough caffeine.

I'll leave my comment though so people can laugh at me if they so desire.

------
kqr2
To me, it would be more interesting to see what % of Wikipedia's _content_ was
created by women since not everyone contributes equally.

According to this post, 50% of Wikipedia's edits are done by just 0.7% of
users:

<http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/whowriteswikipedia>

~~~
roundsquare
I'd also be interested in hours spent. E.g. are women spending more time in
order to create a better article (better written, more research, etc..)?

------
jhust
It's gotta just be that weird social mores make men feel more comfortable than
women spending time and participating actively on the internet...

------
d64
Yet another thing women are just too smart to get into.

------
jongraehl
The two proposed causes ("men spend more time on the Internet"; "men are more
aggressive") are plausible, but perhaps there are also fewer women who feel
capable of editing the average Wikipedia page.

------
Ras_
How much do they make up of programmers?

~~~
newsdog
Someone said there's more transsexual programmers than female ones.

~~~
yummyfajitas
I believe that was in someone's list of the top 100 programmers, not
programmers in general.

------
onreact-com
That's a shame. Wikipedia has to take some steps to counteract the male
dominance. The average "women don't do tech" excuse doesn't work here as women
are often even better or more prolific writers.

~~~
tsally
In what way do you feel that it is Wikipedia's fault that women do not edit it
as often as men? I don't think Wikipedia needs to take steps to counteract
anything in this regard because it's not doing anything to hamper women from
participating.

Also, the %'s don't really matter as long as the content is good. It's not
like women are at a disadvantage because they don't have enough Wikipedia
editors.

~~~
onreact-com
Wow, I'm speechless. You sound like the archetypal defender of male dominance.
It's actually time travel. 100 years ago men were saying using the same
arguments about the right to vote for women..

Contributing to Wikipedia is a constant fight, that's why women don't
participate. You contribute something and almost immediately your stuff gets
deleted unless you engage in some tedious "discussion" why it shouldn't get
deleted.

No wonder women don't contribute in such a hostile atmosphere.

Are you a regular Wikipedia contributor? Why do I ask? You sound like one.
It's exactly this type of hostility I mean.

~~~
tsally
I wasn't confrontational, I just asked in what way you felt that Wikipedia was
preventing women from contributing. I also pointed out that Wikipedia editors
are not people of large influence and not having enough women editors is
unlikely to have a societal impact. And now suddenly we're talking about male
dominance, women's suffrage, and archetypes. That's a pretty big leap.

I'm actually a feminist. But people like you are just as problematic as
misogynistic males. Let me just give you a brief list of things to think
about.

* We don't need a 50/50 split of women and men in everything.

* Men and women are different and not inherently equal in every which way (this goes both directions).

* Making ridiculous claims and accusations just hurts the cause. Note how quick you were to accuse me.

* Picking your battles is important and Wikipedia editing is probably not an important battle.

I have a hard enough time arguing for women without irrational behavior making
it harder. If my comment made you "speechless" you're probably going more harm
to feminism than good. You're making it hard for the average person to take
seriously.

And no, for the record I have never made an edit on Wikipedia.

~~~
onreact-com
"I wasn't confrontational, I just asked in what way you felt that Wikipedia
was preventing women from contributing."

No, you flatly denied there is a problem.

"I also pointed out that Wikipedia editors are not people of large influence
and not having enough women editors is unlikely to have a societal impact."

Wikiepdia is the #1 educational resource right now for most people. When did
you check your Google results the last time? No if this isn't societal impact
what elese is?

"And now suddenly we're talking about male dominance, women's suffrage, and
archetypes. That's a pretty big leap."

It's a small step for you but indeed it's a big issue for at least half of
humanity.

"I'm actually a feminist."

LOL. How that? Let me know.

"* We don't need a 50/50 split of women and men in everything."

Who is we? We "men"?

"* Men and women are different and not inherently equal in every which way
(this goes both directions)."

At least they should have the choice to determine themselves in what way they
want to be equal.

"* Making ridiculous claims and accusations just hurts the cause. Note how
quick you were to accuse me."

Now because I don't agree with you and you don't see a problem with women
being marginal on Wikipedia my point is ridiculous? Well, you're a great
feminist it seems.

"* Picking your battles is important and Wikipedia editing is probably not an
important battle."

See above, tell me another single Website on the Web beside Google that has
more impact than Wikipedia right now.

"And no, for the record I have never made an edit on Wikipedia."

So maybe you should try that to determine why it's actually a problem for
women.

"...irrational behavior..."

Again, just because I'm disagreeing and you make me angry with your ignorance
while pretending to be a feminist doesn't mean I'm irrational.

You said you're a feminist. Try reading this about self proclaimed male
feminists:

""Feminist Men": Oxymorons, or Simply Morons?"
[http://girlbomb.typepad.com/blog/2006/01/feminist_men_ox.htm...](http://girlbomb.typepad.com/blog/2006/01/feminist_men_ox.html)

~~~
tsally
I read the article you linked to. A choice quote:

 _As a matter of fact, it's caused me to realize that most of the men I've
personally known who have made a huge hairy point of identifying as feminists
have been either date rapists, mom fetishists, porn addicts, or bear daddies
inflicting their frustrated pseudopaternal tendencies on women._

You sir, are quite simply a joke. I don't know what kind of bubble you live
in, but it must be a lonely place. If you really are passionate about the
rights of women I'd advise you to reeducate yourself about the important
issues in feminism today and collect a set of sources that are educated and
reasoned. Based on how you've presented yourself, I'd be willing to bet the
hour I spent in the classroom last month teaching middle school girls math
accomplished more for the advancement of women than everything you've done in
your life time. I hope that's not true, but it probably is. _Sigh_. People
like you are the true price we pay for our liberties.

