![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I just removed the following:
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I found this problematic because it was stated as if it were a fact, but it isn't a fact. (The body of the article does not cite any research that shows a cause-and-effect relationship between the gender gap in participation and gender bias in the scope and coverage of the project). I guess it could be included if attributed to a particular commentator as an opinion, but in the Slate piece it's given only as the opinion of the journalists rather than the opinion of an expert. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 02:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
Please don't use the talk page for general discussion. See WP:TALK for more information. |
Gwillhickers Your views on this page are highly problematic, and frankly offensive to me as a woman. I'll keep my points brief; you say "the vast majority of the subjects were and are male" - why do you think that is? I will tell you. Systemic bias. Look up women inventors, such as Margaret Knight, Elizabeth Magie or Chien-Siung Wu, for example. Systemic bias is what has precluded them and countless other women from the history books for so long. "Most women are simply not that interested in history" - where does this claim come from? According to historians.org, 2/3s of historians are women. What an incredibly generalised and biased statement to make. You say most history books are written by men and women aren't being stopped from publishing. Again, your ignorance is astounding. Historically, do you know how hard women had to fight to be considered publishable, compared to men? Do you know that many women would need to attempt to publish under a male name so as to avoid discrimination? Evidently not. What about other barriers, such as access to education (historically) or prejudice within academia itself, or the fact that women were largely made to be responsible for children, and couldn't put forth the time to study and publish? I could continue on with attempting to educate you, but it's not up to me as a woman to do so. If you call yourself a historian, as your wikipedia page suggests, I urge you to research the history of gender discrimination and systemic bias against women. Harriett Potter ( talk) 12:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello EMsmile, thanks for your comment and support. I agree that anything said to this particular user is likely to be futile. I somewhat surmised this beforehand but felt I needed to say something anyway for the public record in case any other users have similar views, and also just because these things should be called out and talked about. It can be a difficult environment on here for women but I am committed to doing what I can to change that. I'm glad you are of the opinion that his views are in the minority! Thanks again. Harriett Potter ( talk) 13:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
|
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Most editors argue that the topic, as reflected in reliable sources, is not just a "gap" but also bias that leads to a gap; furthermore, reliable sources state that this bias is also reflected in Wikipedia's content as well. They therefore oppose changing the title to narrow the scope. Some supporters of the move argue that the gap is not motivated by bias but they have not cited reliable sources that would outweigh the many sources that do describe bias. ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Gender bias on Wikipedia → Wikipedia gender gap – I think this article should be at "Wikipedia gender gap" rather than "Gender bias on Wikipedia".
Gender bias in contentsection out of scope, which is a problem when it has such significant coverage in reliable sources and is clearly related to the same topic. Possibly the article should be shifted to focus more on that instead, since based on the sources it's a key aspect of why the gender balance among editors matters. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Gender bias on Wikipedia […] refers to the fact that Wikipedia contributors are mostly male, [and] relatively few biographies on Wikipedia are about women. The topic of the article is the disparity between male and female editors, and between male and female content. If it were not, then I would be inclined to vote against changing the article title. (On a personal note, I advise you to relax yourself emotionally about this topic. It is not one that threatens you, and I worry that you are taking it personally.) — HTGS ( talk) 04:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
[The gender bias or gap] refers to the fact that Wikipedia contributors are mostly male, that relatively few biographies on Wikipedia are about women, and that topics of interest to women are less well-covered.This sentence could just as easily describe a gap, or a bias. — HTGS ( talk) 01:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Time for a WP:SNOW close? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Some sources for those who would like to review and add; will probably come back when I have time, but any help would be nice.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) -- theoretical considerations for why the gap exists, also some concrete examples (eg, American women sociologists)Also just a note to self to check whether these links are the most up to date (I think the last one isn't). Haven't checked if these are already included or not. Urve ( talk) 04:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Additional source: Minguillón, Julià; Meneses, Julio; Aibar, Eduard; Ferran-Ferrer, Núria; Fàbregues, Sergi (23 February 2021). "Exploring the gender gap in the Spanish Wikipedia: Differences in engagement and editing practices". PLOS ONE. 16 (2).
doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0246702.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link). This makes me start to wonder about article scope -- should it be about Wikipedia as a whole when most sources (that I have access to at least) are about English WP? I think it should be about the entire project but our reliance on en-WP examples makes me wonder. Food for thought for a future discussion at least.
Urve (
talk)
23:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
"I sincerely doubt that anyone here believes "most of the male editors" are responsible for anything, ... The behavior of a few men are being criticized in above sections for, eg, misgendering an editor - that is not a normative claim about most men."I'm hoping that your view here is based on the sources so we can include this important perspective in the article. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I clarified the opening paragraph because the current bias is clearly against women and should be stated as such. If or when this changes in the future then it should be moved further down in the article to a history section. TheKevlar 06:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Came upon this resource in my research:
"We argue that press coverage of Wikipedia can be roughly divided into four periods. We have named each period after a major theme: “Authorial Anarchy” (2001–2004/2005); “Wikiality” (2005–2008); “Bias” (2011–2017); and “Good Cop” (2018–present). We note upfront that these categories are not rigid and that themes and trends from one period can and often do carry over into others. But the overall progression reveals how the dynamic relationship between Wikipedia and the press has changed since its inception and might provide further insight into how the press and Wikipedia will ccontinue to interact with each other in the internet’s knowledge ecosystem(Reagle and Koerner 2020)."
What's important to note her is that there IS a problem, but measures have been done to address it. Not taking sides but I also acknowledge that the era of "Bias" cannot be rigidly contained within 2011-2017. There will always bias in everything, the point is if we are making a conscious effort to rectify it. Caudaequinas ( talk) 20:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Look at the bottom of this page that lists the sections this article is in. That's quite a lot of sections with the words "women" and "feminism" in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.150.125.128 ( talk) 00:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Isabelmadison.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Or is the bias of the interest in the feild at a critical development time?
One should note an encycpedia has a major bent towards science and math topics and articles in both editors and readers. Practical science and technology articles dominate because those tend to be where the most easily accessed and understood source materials are at that are not beyond google and a pay wall.
'Concise encyclopedia of polymer science and engineering' authors is a highly rated and revied editor.
Example specialized sites like Github has a bias first toward people fluent in code because most materials are code and open source code projects by a site built on open source code tools. The male bias is subsequent to the bias within the reach of the subject. Spatial visual parts of the brain and a good number of the structure of the brain related math skills are most likely involved in math gender biased by biology.
Complexity does have some attraction to boys 9-16.
https://daily.jstor.org/how-computer-science-became-a-boys-club/
If it is unconsosoue bias or selection bias is a highly debatable topic with good points on both sides of the argument, but the number of people trained in STEM is clearly gender biased worldwide for decades.
The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics
Diane F. Halpern,1 Camilla P. Benbow,2 David C. Geary,3 Ruben C. Gur,4 Janet Shibley Hyde,5 and Morton Ann Gernsbacher5
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218–261. doi:10.1037/a0014412
Editing STEM articles usually only interests members of the population casually connected to the field. There are in the few experts in field or the armature who spots a significant misunderstand driven by repetition in poor quality sources. If it is causation or causality cannot be spotted in a population study of a select set of articles with a filter as described it is another sort of social science statistic. The topic is also fraught with observation effort bias.
The same young Males also have a bent towards not hiding Obsessive Compulsive behaviors along with anti social behaviors, the editors on the articles I monitor are quite public in maintaining tortured language in a OC way on what should be a cussory jumping off point for information gathering.
https://psychcentral.com/blog/ocd-reflections/2016/06/ocd-and-crime#1 Loopbackdude ( talk) 00:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Yzhou19.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article cites male-female differences as "discrimination"! This is absurd. Given that society has always been patriarchal (and many societies arouond the world still are, and always will be patriarchal, such as Muslim, Jewish, and Christian societies), there are obviously going to be more articles about notable men throughout history than women. That is clearly not "discrimination" of any kind.
As for the gender difference of Wikipedia editors, how can that possibly be considered "discrimination" when editors freely take it upon themselves to sign up to Wikipedia and contribute? To believe that the male bias is "discriminatory", one would have to believe that men and women have identical brains and are equally likely to want to undertake every type of endeavor, a notion which not only goes against common sense, but is scientifically invalid, and would be introducing pseudo-scientific political agendas to Wikipedia. Grand Dizzy ( talk) 14:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) NW1223 <Howl at me• My hunts> 06:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Gender bias on Wikipedia → Sexism on Wikipedia – 'Sexism' is the most commonly used word to describe gender bias. WP:COMMONNAME applies here.
Meet the Editors Fighting Racism and Sexism on Wikipedia
Addressing Racism and Sexism in Wikipedia: A Panel Discussion Desertambition ( talk) 23:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikimedia gave out $250,000 in funding to proposals addressing the gender gap this spring, creating editor meetups with childcare and hosting workshops for admins who want to understand how sexism affects the site.
Ambiguous or inaccurate names ... are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."Sexism" is likely to be misleading and create an inaccurate impression in many readers, who take it to mean something overt, explicit, and deliberate, rather than pervasive or institutional. Google Scholar finds over 6,000 papers that mention Wikipedia and gender bias but not sexism, so in a corpus that's probably less sensationalist on average than the news, gender bias looks to be a pretty common term itself. Of the sources cited above, Wired says
sexismin the headline but
biasand
gender gapin the actual text, the YouTube recording of a panel discussion has
sexismin the title and
gender biasin the description, The Atlantic uses
gender biasin its subhead, Quartz does so in the main text (e.g.,
Her omission from the internet’s encyclopedia prompted accusations of gender bias at Wikipedia...), KQED says
Sexismin the headline but
gender biasand
gender gapin the actual text, the other Wired story has
sexismonly in the headline, and othersociologist.com appears to be a self-published source that uses both
sexismand
gender bias. Bearing in mind that headlines are not to be trusted, the listed sources do not amount to an argument for moving the article. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
On 2020-10-06,
שלומית ליר moved the Further reading ahead of References with the edit summary of simply order
. I am going to restore it to the accustomed order as per
MOS:APPENDIX. I also note that Further reading followed References from its creation as a section August 2014 until October 2020.
Peaceray (
talk)
01:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
It's standard practice in sociology to perform this kind of comparison across matched cohorts:
Wikipedia's articles about women are less likely to be included, expanded, neutral, and detailed.
You're not going to find a matched female cohort for Moses, Jesus, Plato, Marx, Freud, Darwin, Archimedes, Newton, Einstein, or a fairly long list of illustrious/malodorous American presidents. Are we surprised if these articles are edited more often than the merely mortal?
Here's my own personal list of woman in science:
Katie Bouman — 1990; image deconvolution for astronomy Leslie Dewan — 1984; ambitious, but failed thorium cycle Joanna Rutkowska — 1981; computer security Maryam Mirzakhani — born 1977; Fields medal; died of breast cancer at age 40 Nergis Mavalvala — born 1968; LIGO, McAurthur grant Melanie Mitchell — born circa 1969; student of Douglas Hofstadter Daphne Koller — born 1968 Lisa Randall — born 1962; physicist Carol W. Greider — 1961; molecular biologist Sarit Kraus — born 1960; computer scientist; multiagent systems; negotiation Maiken Nedergaard — born circa 1959; glymphatic system Sophie Wilson — 1957; born Roger Wilson; ARM architecture Rebecca Bace — 1955–2017; computer security expert Ingrid Daubechies — 1954; wavelets; image compression Sheila Bird — born 1952; biostatistician Esther Dyson — 1951; not exactly the right list Sally Ride — born 1951; physicist Nancy Lynch — born 1948; logician Jocelyn Bell Burnell — born 1943; pulsars Helena Cronin — born 1942; Darwinism Beatrice Tinsley — 1941–1982; galactic evolution Barbara Liskov — born 1939; substitution principle Lynn Conway — 1938; VLSI demi-God Li Shuxian (physicist) — 1936 birth of husband; also Chinese activist Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) — 1936 Nancy Roman — 1925–2018; Mother Hubble Jean Bartik — 1924–2011; ENIAC programmer Beatrice Worsley — 1921–1972; first Canada woman CS PhD; studied under Turing Rosalind Franklin — 1920–1958 Katherine Johnson — born 1918; computerized celestial navigation Betty Holberton — 1917–2001; ENIAC programmer Grace Hopper — 1906–1992; PhD in computer science; COBOL Maria Goeppert-Mayer — 1906–1972 Barbara McClintock — 1902–1992; cytogenetics Grete Hermann — 1901–1984; one-upped von Neumann, no-one noticed Katharine Burr Blodgett — 1898–1979 Emmy Noether — 1882–1935 Lise Meitner — 1878–1968 Marie Curie — 1867–1934; nuclear physics Sofia Kovalevskaya — 1850-1891; analysis; tutored under Weierstrass Ada Lovelace — 1815–1852 Sophie Germain — 1776–1831 Elizabeth Fulhame — born c. 1750; published 1794 after 14 years of research Caroline Herschel — 1750–1848 Maria Sibylla Merian — 1647–1717 Trota of Salerno — 12th century Hypatia — born c. 350–370; died 415 CE
By no means a complete list, but there are some pretty kick-ass women in there. Find a group of men with similar accomplishment levels, and then compare edit frequencies across the matched groups.
It still won't correct for how women are (probably) more active in editing women (since women are more active in all things "inclusive") and that women naturally have a different editorial style, or that edit counts are kind of stupid in the first place, because they reward ADHD premature submitulation, which is disproportionately a male trait.
I really would like to care about this issue, but I look at the low quality of the statistics usually reported, and I quickly run away. Perhaps that's also a male trait. — MaxEnt 05:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
I just removed the following:
{{
cite web}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I found this problematic because it was stated as if it were a fact, but it isn't a fact. (The body of the article does not cite any research that shows a cause-and-effect relationship between the gender gap in participation and gender bias in the scope and coverage of the project). I guess it could be included if attributed to a particular commentator as an opinion, but in the Slate piece it's given only as the opinion of the journalists rather than the opinion of an expert. Clayoquot ( talk | contribs) 02:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
Please don't use the talk page for general discussion. See WP:TALK for more information. |
Gwillhickers Your views on this page are highly problematic, and frankly offensive to me as a woman. I'll keep my points brief; you say "the vast majority of the subjects were and are male" - why do you think that is? I will tell you. Systemic bias. Look up women inventors, such as Margaret Knight, Elizabeth Magie or Chien-Siung Wu, for example. Systemic bias is what has precluded them and countless other women from the history books for so long. "Most women are simply not that interested in history" - where does this claim come from? According to historians.org, 2/3s of historians are women. What an incredibly generalised and biased statement to make. You say most history books are written by men and women aren't being stopped from publishing. Again, your ignorance is astounding. Historically, do you know how hard women had to fight to be considered publishable, compared to men? Do you know that many women would need to attempt to publish under a male name so as to avoid discrimination? Evidently not. What about other barriers, such as access to education (historically) or prejudice within academia itself, or the fact that women were largely made to be responsible for children, and couldn't put forth the time to study and publish? I could continue on with attempting to educate you, but it's not up to me as a woman to do so. If you call yourself a historian, as your wikipedia page suggests, I urge you to research the history of gender discrimination and systemic bias against women. Harriett Potter ( talk) 12:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello EMsmile, thanks for your comment and support. I agree that anything said to this particular user is likely to be futile. I somewhat surmised this beforehand but felt I needed to say something anyway for the public record in case any other users have similar views, and also just because these things should be called out and talked about. It can be a difficult environment on here for women but I am committed to doing what I can to change that. I'm glad you are of the opinion that his views are in the minority! Thanks again. Harriett Potter ( talk) 13:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
|
The result of the move request was: Not moved. Most editors argue that the topic, as reflected in reliable sources, is not just a "gap" but also bias that leads to a gap; furthermore, reliable sources state that this bias is also reflected in Wikipedia's content as well. They therefore oppose changing the title to narrow the scope. Some supporters of the move argue that the gap is not motivated by bias but they have not cited reliable sources that would outweigh the many sources that do describe bias. ( non-admin closure) ( t · c) buidhe 11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Gender bias on Wikipedia → Wikipedia gender gap – I think this article should be at "Wikipedia gender gap" rather than "Gender bias on Wikipedia".
Gender bias in contentsection out of scope, which is a problem when it has such significant coverage in reliable sources and is clearly related to the same topic. Possibly the article should be shifted to focus more on that instead, since based on the sources it's a key aspect of why the gender balance among editors matters. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
Gender bias on Wikipedia […] refers to the fact that Wikipedia contributors are mostly male, [and] relatively few biographies on Wikipedia are about women. The topic of the article is the disparity between male and female editors, and between male and female content. If it were not, then I would be inclined to vote against changing the article title. (On a personal note, I advise you to relax yourself emotionally about this topic. It is not one that threatens you, and I worry that you are taking it personally.) — HTGS ( talk) 04:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
[The gender bias or gap] refers to the fact that Wikipedia contributors are mostly male, that relatively few biographies on Wikipedia are about women, and that topics of interest to women are less well-covered.This sentence could just as easily describe a gap, or a bias. — HTGS ( talk) 01:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
Time for a WP:SNOW close? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Some sources for those who would like to review and add; will probably come back when I have time, but any help would be nice.
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help) -- theoretical considerations for why the gap exists, also some concrete examples (eg, American women sociologists)Also just a note to self to check whether these links are the most up to date (I think the last one isn't). Haven't checked if these are already included or not. Urve ( talk) 04:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Additional source: Minguillón, Julià; Meneses, Julio; Aibar, Eduard; Ferran-Ferrer, Núria; Fàbregues, Sergi (23 February 2021). "Exploring the gender gap in the Spanish Wikipedia: Differences in engagement and editing practices". PLOS ONE. 16 (2).
doi:
10.1371/journal.pone.0246702.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link). This makes me start to wonder about article scope -- should it be about Wikipedia as a whole when most sources (that I have access to at least) are about English WP? I think it should be about the entire project but our reliance on en-WP examples makes me wonder. Food for thought for a future discussion at least.
Urve (
talk)
23:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
"I sincerely doubt that anyone here believes "most of the male editors" are responsible for anything, ... The behavior of a few men are being criticized in above sections for, eg, misgendering an editor - that is not a normative claim about most men."I'm hoping that your view here is based on the sources so we can include this important perspective in the article. -- Gwillhickers ( talk) 21:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
I clarified the opening paragraph because the current bias is clearly against women and should be stated as such. If or when this changes in the future then it should be moved further down in the article to a history section. TheKevlar 06:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Came upon this resource in my research:
"We argue that press coverage of Wikipedia can be roughly divided into four periods. We have named each period after a major theme: “Authorial Anarchy” (2001–2004/2005); “Wikiality” (2005–2008); “Bias” (2011–2017); and “Good Cop” (2018–present). We note upfront that these categories are not rigid and that themes and trends from one period can and often do carry over into others. But the overall progression reveals how the dynamic relationship between Wikipedia and the press has changed since its inception and might provide further insight into how the press and Wikipedia will ccontinue to interact with each other in the internet’s knowledge ecosystem(Reagle and Koerner 2020)."
What's important to note her is that there IS a problem, but measures have been done to address it. Not taking sides but I also acknowledge that the era of "Bias" cannot be rigidly contained within 2011-2017. There will always bias in everything, the point is if we are making a conscious effort to rectify it. Caudaequinas ( talk) 20:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Look at the bottom of this page that lists the sections this article is in. That's quite a lot of sections with the words "women" and "feminism" in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.150.125.128 ( talk) 00:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Isabelmadison.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Or is the bias of the interest in the feild at a critical development time?
One should note an encycpedia has a major bent towards science and math topics and articles in both editors and readers. Practical science and technology articles dominate because those tend to be where the most easily accessed and understood source materials are at that are not beyond google and a pay wall.
'Concise encyclopedia of polymer science and engineering' authors is a highly rated and revied editor.
Example specialized sites like Github has a bias first toward people fluent in code because most materials are code and open source code projects by a site built on open source code tools. The male bias is subsequent to the bias within the reach of the subject. Spatial visual parts of the brain and a good number of the structure of the brain related math skills are most likely involved in math gender biased by biology.
Complexity does have some attraction to boys 9-16.
https://daily.jstor.org/how-computer-science-became-a-boys-club/
If it is unconsosoue bias or selection bias is a highly debatable topic with good points on both sides of the argument, but the number of people trained in STEM is clearly gender biased worldwide for decades.
The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics
Diane F. Halpern,1 Camilla P. Benbow,2 David C. Geary,3 Ruben C. Gur,4 Janet Shibley Hyde,5 and Morton Ann Gernsbacher5
Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218–261. doi:10.1037/a0014412
Editing STEM articles usually only interests members of the population casually connected to the field. There are in the few experts in field or the armature who spots a significant misunderstand driven by repetition in poor quality sources. If it is causation or causality cannot be spotted in a population study of a select set of articles with a filter as described it is another sort of social science statistic. The topic is also fraught with observation effort bias.
The same young Males also have a bent towards not hiding Obsessive Compulsive behaviors along with anti social behaviors, the editors on the articles I monitor are quite public in maintaining tortured language in a OC way on what should be a cussory jumping off point for information gathering.
https://psychcentral.com/blog/ocd-reflections/2016/06/ocd-and-crime#1 Loopbackdude ( talk) 00:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Yzhou19.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article cites male-female differences as "discrimination"! This is absurd. Given that society has always been patriarchal (and many societies arouond the world still are, and always will be patriarchal, such as Muslim, Jewish, and Christian societies), there are obviously going to be more articles about notable men throughout history than women. That is clearly not "discrimination" of any kind.
As for the gender difference of Wikipedia editors, how can that possibly be considered "discrimination" when editors freely take it upon themselves to sign up to Wikipedia and contribute? To believe that the male bias is "discriminatory", one would have to believe that men and women have identical brains and are equally likely to want to undertake every type of endeavor, a notion which not only goes against common sense, but is scientifically invalid, and would be introducing pseudo-scientific political agendas to Wikipedia. Grand Dizzy ( talk) 14:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. ( non-admin closure) NW1223 <Howl at me• My hunts> 06:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Gender bias on Wikipedia → Sexism on Wikipedia – 'Sexism' is the most commonly used word to describe gender bias. WP:COMMONNAME applies here.
Meet the Editors Fighting Racism and Sexism on Wikipedia
Addressing Racism and Sexism in Wikipedia: A Panel Discussion Desertambition ( talk) 23:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Wikimedia gave out $250,000 in funding to proposals addressing the gender gap this spring, creating editor meetups with childcare and hosting workshops for admins who want to understand how sexism affects the site.
Ambiguous or inaccurate names ... are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources."Sexism" is likely to be misleading and create an inaccurate impression in many readers, who take it to mean something overt, explicit, and deliberate, rather than pervasive or institutional. Google Scholar finds over 6,000 papers that mention Wikipedia and gender bias but not sexism, so in a corpus that's probably less sensationalist on average than the news, gender bias looks to be a pretty common term itself. Of the sources cited above, Wired says
sexismin the headline but
biasand
gender gapin the actual text, the YouTube recording of a panel discussion has
sexismin the title and
gender biasin the description, The Atlantic uses
gender biasin its subhead, Quartz does so in the main text (e.g.,
Her omission from the internet’s encyclopedia prompted accusations of gender bias at Wikipedia...), KQED says
Sexismin the headline but
gender biasand
gender gapin the actual text, the other Wired story has
sexismonly in the headline, and othersociologist.com appears to be a self-published source that uses both
sexismand
gender bias. Bearing in mind that headlines are not to be trusted, the listed sources do not amount to an argument for moving the article. XOR'easter ( talk) 20:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
On 2020-10-06,
שלומית ליר moved the Further reading ahead of References with the edit summary of simply order
. I am going to restore it to the accustomed order as per
MOS:APPENDIX. I also note that Further reading followed References from its creation as a section August 2014 until October 2020.
Peaceray (
talk)
01:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
It's standard practice in sociology to perform this kind of comparison across matched cohorts:
Wikipedia's articles about women are less likely to be included, expanded, neutral, and detailed.
You're not going to find a matched female cohort for Moses, Jesus, Plato, Marx, Freud, Darwin, Archimedes, Newton, Einstein, or a fairly long list of illustrious/malodorous American presidents. Are we surprised if these articles are edited more often than the merely mortal?
Here's my own personal list of woman in science:
Katie Bouman — 1990; image deconvolution for astronomy Leslie Dewan — 1984; ambitious, but failed thorium cycle Joanna Rutkowska — 1981; computer security Maryam Mirzakhani — born 1977; Fields medal; died of breast cancer at age 40 Nergis Mavalvala — born 1968; LIGO, McAurthur grant Melanie Mitchell — born circa 1969; student of Douglas Hofstadter Daphne Koller — born 1968 Lisa Randall — born 1962; physicist Carol W. Greider — 1961; molecular biologist Sarit Kraus — born 1960; computer scientist; multiagent systems; negotiation Maiken Nedergaard — born circa 1959; glymphatic system Sophie Wilson — 1957; born Roger Wilson; ARM architecture Rebecca Bace — 1955–2017; computer security expert Ingrid Daubechies — 1954; wavelets; image compression Sheila Bird — born 1952; biostatistician Esther Dyson — 1951; not exactly the right list Sally Ride — born 1951; physicist Nancy Lynch — born 1948; logician Jocelyn Bell Burnell — born 1943; pulsars Helena Cronin — born 1942; Darwinism Beatrice Tinsley — 1941–1982; galactic evolution Barbara Liskov — born 1939; substitution principle Lynn Conway — 1938; VLSI demi-God Li Shuxian (physicist) — 1936 birth of husband; also Chinese activist Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) — 1936 Nancy Roman — 1925–2018; Mother Hubble Jean Bartik — 1924–2011; ENIAC programmer Beatrice Worsley — 1921–1972; first Canada woman CS PhD; studied under Turing Rosalind Franklin — 1920–1958 Katherine Johnson — born 1918; computerized celestial navigation Betty Holberton — 1917–2001; ENIAC programmer Grace Hopper — 1906–1992; PhD in computer science; COBOL Maria Goeppert-Mayer — 1906–1972 Barbara McClintock — 1902–1992; cytogenetics Grete Hermann — 1901–1984; one-upped von Neumann, no-one noticed Katharine Burr Blodgett — 1898–1979 Emmy Noether — 1882–1935 Lise Meitner — 1878–1968 Marie Curie — 1867–1934; nuclear physics Sofia Kovalevskaya — 1850-1891; analysis; tutored under Weierstrass Ada Lovelace — 1815–1852 Sophie Germain — 1776–1831 Elizabeth Fulhame — born c. 1750; published 1794 after 14 years of research Caroline Herschel — 1750–1848 Maria Sibylla Merian — 1647–1717 Trota of Salerno — 12th century Hypatia — born c. 350–370; died 415 CE
By no means a complete list, but there are some pretty kick-ass women in there. Find a group of men with similar accomplishment levels, and then compare edit frequencies across the matched groups.
It still won't correct for how women are (probably) more active in editing women (since women are more active in all things "inclusive") and that women naturally have a different editorial style, or that edit counts are kind of stupid in the first place, because they reward ADHD premature submitulation, which is disproportionately a male trait.
I really would like to care about this issue, but I look at the low quality of the statistics usually reported, and I quickly run away. Perhaps that's also a male trait. — MaxEnt 05:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)