Women's Wikipedia Experiences Redux
On February 4, Justine Cassell, the director of the Human-Computer Interaction Institute at Carnegie Mellon University, posted on The New York Times' Room for Debate about the issue of dearth of women on Wikipedia postings (see here). She distinguished two kinds of problems: first she noted there is a content problem. Articles that might interest women are fewer and shorter (Jimmie Choo shoes) than those that might interest men (Grand Theft Auto). Second is the problem we've focused on in earlier threads, low percentage of women authors of articles. She posed the question, do we want women on Wikipedia for diversity alone? her answer is, no. Instead "we care because this gender imbalance raises the possibility that "citizen-generated media" are not actually generated by all citizens, and that the democracy that Wikipedia aspires to may in fact ignore the voices of 50 percent of the population."
As some of our comment providers have noted, Wikipedia is not quite the open, democratic, fully accepting source it might appear to be to users as opposed to contributors. She continues to note that "From the inside, on the other hand, Wikipedia may feel like a fight to get one's voice heard. One gets a sense of this insider view from looking at the "talk page" of many articles, which rather than seeming like collaborations around the construction of knowledge, are full of descriptions of "edit-warring" - where successive editors try to cancel each others' contributions out - and bitter, contentious arguments about the accuracy of conflicting points of view." Contributors have to debate with other potential posters, to defend their points of view, sometimes repeatedly, against cyber modification, and to be vigilant over the posted material lest it disappear. Whatever we may think about the potential roles men and women can take on, today's American women often resist roles that involve attack and debate, and vigorous defense of anything a woman sees as possible opinion rather than fact becomes highly uncomfotable for most.
Cassell points out that it's ironic that Sue Gardner, the current director of Wikipedia, herself says she wants to avoid contentious debate. Cassell quotes her words from the Times article, "Gender is a huge hot-button issue for lots of people who feel strongly about it. I am not interested in triggering those strong feelings." So she should be sensitive to trying to make the process less contentious for women who might consider posting.
What do you think?
A I disagree with Cassell and think it's just not that important
B I think changing the "talk page" methods would make a big difference and Sue Gardner should work towards moderating the kinds of fights that occur there.
C I think women need to get over their reticence to defend and re-defend their positions.
Right, Melissa, it's the underdog who "needs" to learn new tricks, not the overdog. But we would like to have the overdog learn to create a welcoming atmosphere for women instead of one where they constantly feel they must watch their step.
cheers,
Laura
It's interesting that Mad Hatter feels we should keep trying but most of the others are at least ambivalent. After a strong negative signal, women rarely persist in all kinds of other venues (majoring in chemistry, for example), so why should we find this surprising? It fits the pattern we've seen before. Can women retrain themselves to step out of their natural pattern? Does anyone ask, can men? MKS
I don't know, maybe it's because this is the second posting or third on this issue, but I'm veering towards A this time. I hate women to keep battering their heads against the wall for little gain. I think there are other issues we can make better progress on.
B, because when a woman is the boss, she can work with subtlety to change the culture of the whole endeavor. I think she shouldn't waste this opportunity. And we should try to help by testing the waters from time to time. If it is horrible, we can pull back again.
Hi friends,
Anyone who belongs to AAUW should consider being part of their Voices project to help get women up to speed writing op/ed pieces on women. They hope to train the cadre and release them for action in time for the equal pay for equal work issue with the day coming up in April.
cheers,
Laura
Please pick C. Why wouldn't you pick it? Didn't you go and read Clay Shirky's rant on women back when Laura posted about it? Stick in your oar, open your mouth, speak!
B! Why does it have to be so conflicted? I don't like flame wars and I feel even more like avoiding Wikipedia now. Of course, the site is seen by PIs as just a waste of time, even if you could put up something and have it stay there. I sort of think A.
B. I'm amazed that they have a woman in charge. Since she doesn't like the hurly burly, it would be great if she'd step in to tone it down.
I hate the idea that whenever women have a problem, they should just change (choice C). I think the systems need to change to welcome us.
