
Wikipedia isn’t officially a social network, but the harassment can get ugly - bookofjoe
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/wikipedia-harassment-wikimedia-foundation.html
======
billfruit
Why I do I see the problems of harassment and of lack of representation being
conflated here.

While harrasement is deplorable and needs to be tackled, I think it is wrong
to insinuate that it is a major cause for lack of participation by women in
Wikipedia.

It is a voluntary effort, and besides editors do not have to declare their
names or gender in Wikipedia. Editors need not even have accounts. So the
numbers the article cites are likely to be unreliable.

~~~
scarejunba
I have an anecdote to share which has (perhaps unfairly) biased my beliefs
regarding underrepresented people on Wikipedia.

On /r/twoxchromosomes, a profile of a somewhat accomplished (more like John
Aaron, less like Alan Turing) woman was posted. In the comments were some six
to ten people lamenting that she didn't have a Wikipedia page.

I thought perhaps it had been put up for RFDs or something the way they
complained about how a man in the same position would have a page. Anyway, so
I waited a day to see if they'd do anything and they didn't.

The woman in question did deserve a Wikipedia page so I made one, described
her story, and added citations. Within the week, various bots had made it
pretty. I was then able to go request a picture for her Wikipedia page. I just
checked and the page looks pretty good. Lots of people have contributed.

Nothing I did was impossible for any of them to do. So why didn't they do it?
Why instead did they write absolute reams of comments about the unfairness
when they had the tools to fix it? Why are they so helpless?

On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog. You can be the change, quietly.

~~~
Traster
One thing I've noticed with wikipedia is that it has an insanely high barrier
to entry. I will never create a wikipedia page for 1 reason: The first time I
tried to edit a page was a nightmare. I was doing a degree, looked up some
information, followed the source and it was very clear in the source that the
equation on the page was wrong. I corrected the equation on the page. It was
then reverted. I pointed out in the chat that the page was wrong and the
source proved it. I was told the page was already based on the source and
unless I could find a new citation to prove what I was claiming the page would
stay as it is. So wikipedia is factually wrong on some basic engineering
equation, and I walked away because I'm not going to wade through bureaucracy
for some charitable change I was making.

Over the years I've found out that this is the standard experience for most
first time wikipedia contributers. So whilst it may be easy for someone to
create a page, that is not the experience for a first time user, and high
barriers to entry are a great way of creating an exclusionary environment.

What you're describing is a problem not for the people in that thread. It' sa
failure of wikipedia that it's created an environment where the average person
doesn't feel able to contribute on a topic they know.

~~~
antientropic
It's absurd to say that Wikipedia has an "insanely high barrier to entry". You
click "Edit" and that's it - you don't even have to create an account. It's
hard to imagine a lower barrier to entry. Of course, the flip side is that
anybody can revert your change as well; your edit is not sacred. I mean, what
alternative do you propose? That Wikipedia should never revert edits? Change
into Everything2?

~~~
baud147258
That low barrier to entry is just for the more minor changes, like correcting
a typo. For anything more complex, you'd have to successfully use their
editor, find acceptable sources and correctly quote them.

~~~
DanBC
Even seemingly minor changes can be fraught.

The discussion about whether to use –,— or - takes several hundred thousand
words, and went all the way to ArbCom.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitra...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case&oldid=429209333#Hyphens_and_dashes)

For a while merely chosing a username was risky business. It's got a bit
better now, but it's still weirdly complex process if someone disagrees with
your choice of name.

------
anonytrary
> It is a kind of social network where users debate the minutiae of history
> and modern life, climb the editorial hierarchy and even meet friends and
> romantic partners.

Exactly. Just because Wikipedia doesn't have traditional profiles and like
buttons doesn't mean it isn't a social network. A social network at the end of
the day is literally just that: a graph of people (nodes) with relationships
(edges) between them.

For some reason, people tend to think of social networks as more specific
things than they actually are. That happens all the time with language. Some
big brand comes along and monopolizes an entire widget[0]. Twenty years later,
we get a small fraction of people who actually believe that something can only
be a widget IFF it looks like that brand's widget. Social networks can look
very different than Facebook or MySpace. Wikipedia is one such example.

If you can model Wikipedia as a graph of people with relationships, then it
makes sense to think of it as a social network. It's actually pretty easy to
establish a toy model. There are lurkers and editors. Lurkers visit pages
built by the editors, and editors effectively interact with each other through
edits.

In any system where you can interact with people, unwritten social rules
become relevant, and we can expect things like harassment.

[0] [http://mentalfloss.com/article/56667/41-brand-names-
people-u...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/56667/41-brand-names-people-use-
generic-terms)

~~~
JumpCrisscross
> _doesn 't mean it isn't a social network_

Social networks don’t tend towards meanness _per se_. Only those that are
incentivised to drive engagement, like those powered by ads, have an inherent
tendency towards devolving into cesspools. Wikipedia doesn’t appear to be
inherently corrupted in the way Facebook or Twitter are.

~~~
DanBC
Wikipedia is a cesspool and it's incredibly hostile to some users, which is
why wikipedia and wikimedia foundation keep trying to fix it.

------
olasaustralia
The title doesn't match what's in the article. A better title would be
'Wikipedia's editors are mostly men and they don't have an understanding of
non-heterosexual ideas or people'.

It seems like editors have arguments on these topics, according to the
article. Not harassment on every topic under the sun

~~~
bubblewrap
How do you go from "having arguments over topic x" to "having a poor
understanding of topic x"?

~~~
boomlinde
How do you go from "posting pictures of genitalia on user pages" to "having
arguments over topic x"?

~~~
bubblewrap
Not rereading the article again, but I am pretty sure posting pictures of
genitalia on user pages was not the only thing going on.

As a rule, just because an asshole or idiot disagrees with you, it doesn't
make you right. Stop trying to use that as an argument.

~~~
boomlinde
_> Not rereading the article again, but I am pretty sure posting pictures of
genitalia on user pages was not the only thing going on._

On the other hand I'm pretty sure that "having arguments over topic x" wasn
not the only thing going on either.

 _> As a rule, just because an asshole or idiot disagrees with you, it doesn't
make you right. Stop trying to use that as an argument._

Where is that used as an argument?

------
maxheadroom
Whilst I can understand and empathise with the possible good natured intent of
the NYT article, if one looks at the stats (that they, themselves,
referenced), the demographics for other languages are _vastly_ different[0].

Also, "Simple English"[1] is vastly different from "English"[2] and stats
referenced don't seem to list "English" but, rather, "Simple English"; so,
referencing it is bordering on intentionally misrepresenting the statistics to
favour your argument.

The stats also notate the following: " _This cutoff is arbitrary for the sake
of clearly visualizing the distribution across major Wikipedia languages._ "
This, to me, would seem to be the most disconcerting aspect/notion of the
stats, in question. Arbitrarily deciding what a "cut-off" point is will,
surely, make the stats askewed.

...but if we're to proceed with taking the article at face-value, then we must
also ask the question:

Why is there such a stark contrast between the languages in these stats? For
example, Welsh (the second-highest stat) is almost at 50%.

Why would there be such a discrepency between the two languages (English
versus Welsh), if they share nigh equal hardships? Does this actually come
down to culture as a byproduct of language representation?

[0] - [https://whgi.wmflabs.org/gender-by-
language.html](https://whgi.wmflabs.org/gender-by-language.html)

[1] -
[https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page](https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)

[2] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page)

------
couterSpell
Wikipedia does a decent service, but its community is a toxic cesspool.

And I think one of the underlying issues with Wikipedia is its is community
incredibly hostile to new editors. So any attempts by Wikipedia to correct for
the bias toward white male editors is often undercut by its own community.

~~~
snvzz
A good example of the extents of Wikipedia bias is the GamerGate article[2].

It's extremely biased when put in contrast with Infogalactic[0] and even
against Encyclopedia Dramatica[1] despite its nature.

[0][https://infogalactic.com/info/GamerGate](https://infogalactic.com/info/GamerGate)

[1][https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Gamergate](https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Gamergate)

[2][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamergate_controversy)

------
bubblewrap
Sounds like fights over political issues. Disingenuous to frame that as simply
harassment of women or trans people (as is to be expected from the NYT).

Also, it is the internet. It just takes one awful person out of several
Billion people to harass other people all over the world. More specifically,
if you post insults (like, for simplicity, implying via feminism that men are
assholes), you are bound to hit somebody among the Billions of people who
fights back.

So far I have mostly heard of Wikipedia being rather left leaning and many
topics being controlled by installed moderators.

------
_Codemonkeyism
This article is interesting, it seems Wikipedia has changed a lot. 10+y ago we
wrote a Wiki software (SnipSnap) and had been to several Wiki conferences with
Wikipedia side tracks, and Wikipedians seemed very diverse.

As a side note I'm discouraged because of the labyrinth of arcane rules (which
I assume have all a reason to be there) around Wikipedia, and when adding
something it goes into weird modes sand needs to be reviewed which last time
took several weeks.

------
kristianc
I see a lot of comments here saying "editors don't have to declare their names
and gender", but in many ways, that's point.

Men have the option of declaring their gender without fear of any consequence.
They don't have to excise any mention on their profile of details that might
reveal their sexuality or gender. Some are even able to wear it like a badge.
They're able to lay down roots on Wikipedia - create a profile and become a
respected editor.

Women and LGBT people aren't able to do the same without hiding their gender -
and have to go out of their way to hide it for fear of harassment. Saying
"they can just use the WYSIWYG editor" misses the point. Other people _can_ be
more than an IP address.

The point isn't that people are able to hide their gender or sexuality, it's
that anyone has to do it in the first place.

~~~
Consultant32452
Men are more likely to be harassed online than women. Women are far more
likely to experience one of the types of harassment: sexual harassment, but
when looking at harassment as a whole including threats of violence or being
called offensive names, men are more commonly victims.

[https://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/experiencing-
online-h...](https://www.pewinternet.org/2017/07/11/experiencing-online-
harassment/)

~~~
kristianc
That distinction matters though: online, people are in a position to reach
many thousands, or millions of people through their work.

If women are driven out of the online space by harassment or otherwise, the
vast majority of that influence and opportunity will accrue to men.

While threats of violence and being called offensive names are not nice, they
don't limit the man's potential in the same way by virtue of being offline.

(Neither, I might add, does it seem to be having a large impact on men's
advancement in the professional offline space, where the vast majority of
senior positions are also held by men).

~~~
manfredo
> While threats of violence and being called offensive names are not nice,
> they don't limit the man's potential in the same way by virtue of being
> offline.

I don't think you're understanding the data. I read the study, too. Men
received more harassment overall online. All the harassment in the linked
study is online harassment. I'm not sure what you're talking about this
harassment being "offline" for men.

------
kthejoker2
Let us read our Shirky again: yes, Wikipedia is absolutely social software.

[http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/group_enem...](http://www.shirky.com/writings/herecomeseverybody/group_enemy.html)

~~~
bookofjoe
Fantastic link: thank you. This is why HN is my favorite website, which I
return to 5-10 times daily for just this sort of unpredictable Easter egg.

~~~
bookofjoe
Remarkably, Shirky's essay predicted much of what has transpired with the rise
of Facebook from its February 1, 2004 beginning — nearly a year after the
piece appeared.

------
cm2187
I am sure there is also harassment, but many of the examples mentioned in the
article are rather bitter divergence of political opinions, not harassment.
And I don’t see how it could not be the case, you won’t get people with
opposite political opinions to agree on a single narrative, and when one reads
an article on any slightly politicized topic on wikipedia, one should always
be mindful that one is reading merely some dude’s political opinion, not some
absolute truth. The NY times only calls it harassment because it has picked a
side.

------
js8
In other news, although collections of human beings in the West aren't
officially societies (see
[https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689](https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/106689)),
the harassment can still get ugly!

------
olivermarks
[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x47bb/wikipedia-...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7x47bb/wikipedia-
editors-elite-diversity-foundation)

------
Wyndtroy2012
I find Wikipedia tremendously useful and have made modest acknowledgement of
that financially. That said, I tried to get them to correct/augment something
they had based on a thesis from the 1970's at a top US school. The matter
could have been verified but instead it was rejected out of hand and so the
content on Wikipedia is less than it might have been. I had a sense the matter
was handled with great dispatch and finality.

------
GrryDucape
I find Wikipedia tremendously useful and have made modest acknowledgement of
that financially. That said, I tried to get them to correct/augment something
they had based on a thesis from the 1970's at a top US school. The matter
could have been verified but instead it was rejected out of hand and so the
content on Wikipedia is less than it might have been. I had a sense the matter
was handled with great dispatch and finality.

~~~
js8
I am just having a similar problem at
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Haken](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Haken)

There is no source that would prove that Armin Haken is his son, and so
unfortunately Armin's work cannot be mentioned in the context of the article,
as apparently somebody tried to do before me. (I actually read Armin's article
that was mentioned on Wikipedia and then encountered Wolfgang Haken in a
different context, and I was wondering if he is the same guy.)

So, the usability of Wikipedia is decreased (ironically, it can still be found
in the history). I wish they took a more nuanced view on source reliability
than just black and white.

------
umeshunni
Is nytimes running out of social networks to bash?

~~~
azeotropic
Sounds like the NYT is preparing for the Democratic party primaries. I presume
Wikipedia must contain unflattering facts in the articles for one or more
female candidates. Now these can just be dismissed as harassment by bigoted
male wikipedians.

~~~
SolaceQuantum
I feel like this is an uncharitable interpretation that dives into intent.
Humans in my experience are generally not prone to such nuanced planning
regardless of their influence. A more reasonable assumption is that the
writers of the article genuinely believe that Wikipedia is biased against
women, which is evidence towards a world belief that systemic bias against
women exists in the writer's society, which is a position increasingly
associated with the Democratic party of the united states. In other words,
correlated but not causative events are occuring.

~~~
azeotropic
The media, and the NYT in particular doesn't deserve too much charity here.
They are almost all members of the Democratic Party, and heavily invested in
the outcome of the primaries. They're in a unique position to shape the
national conversation in a way that favors their favored candidate (e.g. by
deciding what is or is not newsworthy), and they frequently use that power. Do
you remember how Howard Dean's "yee-haw" was a sign that he was dangerously
unstable? Do you remember the moral panic about misogynistic 'Bernie Bros'?
Why after all these years did the media suddenly notice Joe Biden is kind of
handsy? I don't think it's too cynical to believe that the media is trying to
play kingmaker (or queenmaker) in the Democratic primaries. That's more or
less their favorite hobby.

------
jeromebaek
I saw an article here a couple days ago that there's this one guy who's edited
or authored a third of all Wikipedia articles. Sounds like a decidedly un-
democratic practice, to me... Not that I'm criticizing the guy, more power to
him, just pointing out that this ideal of Wikipedia as a totally democratic
base of knowledge just isn't true in practice, there are a few people holding
all or most of the power, just as in any institution.

~~~
talonx
It is democratic. Just that democracy does not mean the best or the ideal - it
just means the majority.

~~~
draugadrotten
Wikipedia is not democratic, and certainly not in the sense of a majority
(vote). It is governed by a feudal model where there are lords and vassals,
and you are the peasant.

