Comments

From WikiChix

Jump to: navigation, search

This page was for public comments. However, editing of public pages by unregistered users is currently disabled due to MediaWiki bug 8462. You can make comments at WikiAngela:Wikichix instead until an alternative solution is found. Any registered user can copy the comments over from there.

You can subscribe to updates for this page: rss/atom.

Contents

Links to comments elsewhere

Female contributions, leadership and role models

I have long hair, but it seems that's not quite sufficient for an account, so guess I'll have to stick to commenting here. ;-)

Over the last two years, I've founded three separate wikis; the first two have built up a significant community. In both of these, of the top five contributors, two were female, and in both cases the second highest contributor in terms of edit count was female. On the largest, around 30% of edits were by female editors. This seems significant for an area which is meant to be male-dominated, and it supports the theory that female editors may be more comfortable editing outside of Wikipedia. I'll be inviting them to contribute here in the hope that they decide to elaborate on their own views and motives.

In general - and this is a generalization, which may not be accurate in all cases - I have seen female contributors as more willing to do solid work over a period of time to fill out categories in which they consider themselves experts, or to do "collation"-type articles that draw a number of links between widely-separated sources/articles together, while male contributors often concentrate on a dense core of articles around a given topic that interests them greatly. Both of these activities benefit the wiki, of course, and so I think it is important to have a mix of editors. I find it significant that Wikipedia's reward system (and that of most wikis) is biased towards lauding single articles rather than something like "category of the week", which - judging from the above - is something that women might be more inclined to work towards.

What I have not seen much of so far are significant community wikis founded by women. I am wondering if this is just because I've not been looking in the right areas, or if there really is a lack of willingness to lead on the part of women (or perhaps an inability to get others, either women or men, to follow). I know that the women who contribute to the wikis I founded are willing to take strong positions on articles, but I'm unsure from their comments whether they consider themselves leaders, even though by contributions they have far more of a right to do so than most others. Often it seems as if they are deliberately avoiding the label (perhaps to avoid conflict?). Both of the "second in command" editors that I mentioned previously have taken anonymous, sexually-ambiguous names, and many other contributors assume that they are male.

I strongly feel that a leader is necessary for a successful wiki, even if (after a while) they end up being primarily a figurehead that reports on the activities of others. There needs to be someone who seeks to expand awareness of the wiki to appropriate communities and is willing to act as the person in charge. So, perhaps one way in which to improve the state of women in the community of wikis would be to provide training in wiki leadership and promotion, and its importance in building a community. It would also be great to hear more about the women that take a leading role in wikis as this would provide good role-models for other female editors to emulate.

Of course, it may be that many women do not want to be leaders. I doubt that this is universally the case, but if it is significantly true then perhaps we need to consider why this is, whether it is something that needs to be fixed, and if so, how to go about that. --GreenReaper 07:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I would note that the comments above relate mostly to my experience with wikis other than Wikipedia, and the bias towards male leadership I see there. And yes, I am aware that there are exceptions, like the current Wikimedia chair. I also know that at least one woman has left that very board over what seems to be a problem with the way it runs ("the collaborative consensus-based nature Wikimedia had before the start of this year continues to deteriorate and it's no longer an environment I can work effectively in."). If put in the same position, would other women feel the same way? Does Wikimedia reflect Wikipedia? --GreenReaper 13:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi, GreenReaper.
About significant wikis founded by women, or lack of -- I suspect this is related to both your leadership questions and wikidom in general. That is, I might be wrong, but I believe many of the most-successful wikis are focused either on technology in general or computer and video games more spefically. Both fields are dominated by men. (Then again, most fields are dominated by men, to varying degrees.)
It just occurred to me that wikis are very yin-yang, for lack of a better phrase. They combine elements that are typically masculine and feminine to an uncommon degree. I think that to most of the population, wikis seem more technical than we initiates generally realize. But they are also intended as a cooperative environment.
The leadership question is too big for me to respond to right now. Maurreen 06:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks so much for starting this. It's just what I needed, personally, to fire me up to contribute more to Wikipedia and to help me with my non-Wikipedia wiki projects. I really appreciate it and will tell my other wiki-women colleagues. What a positive and productive step to take! Congratulations Angela and other founders.--Liz 17:15, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Comments from Matt Crypto

I'm User:Matt Crypto from the English and Swahili Wikipedias, and I'm a bloke. I'm most concerned about Wikipedia, as that's the wiki I've most experience in; my comments will be biased in that direction.

On mailing lists, it says, "Discussion on whether to open the list to men is underway. Please feel free to comment on this." I originally posted about WikiChix on Wikimedia's mailing lists, but I thought I would draw on those comments and write something here too.

Let me be clear, first off: any idea to make Wikipedia (or any wiki, for that matter) a more comfortable place for people to get involved is a worthy one, and, as a WikiBloke, I support a forum for editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis, to promote wikis to potential female editors, and for general discussion of wikis in a female-friendly environment. (This is close to, but not quite the same as, the stated aim expressed on WikiChix). So: bravo to WikiChix and Angela, and I wish you success.

However, I believe the female-only rule to be suboptimal. I understand the reasoning, that without it, some women would not be able to discuss these issues at all. But I also believe that WikiChix can be a female-friendly forum by the use of moderation, rather than discrimination. And, given the assumption that the forum is female-friendly, you can then do more good if you are open to all minds.

I'll offer my reasons why. I am generally uncomfortable with the idea of discriminating on gender without some extremely compelling reason, but that's an ethical standpoint, which you may or may not share -- and it's not my ethical decision to make. However, I think excluding males also entails some negative practical consequences.

  • First, discussion isn't enabled by segregating the people who should be talking to each other about a problem. I believe that if WikiChix are going to have an impact on wikis at large, one of the things you're going to have to do is talk to men about it at some point. By being female-only, WikiChix hides the concerns of women outside the view of men, with the result that men will not understand the problems as well as they might if it were public. With Wikipedia in particular, I think a sane inclusive discussion is needed somewhere about gender bias, but that may be inhibited if half the potential participants are discussing it amongst themselves here on WikiChix.
  • Second, men have the capacity to say useful things in discussions about gender bias in wikis and promoting wikis to females. By excluding male minds, to a certain extent you do not benefit from their useful thought. (And yes, we do have the rare useful thought ;-)
  • Third, while it may sound petty, being shut out from something -- anything -- just because you're a man or a woman is something of an affront. Whether males have a right to be annoyed in this case is besides the point: it's a likely, natural human reaction. As a result, you lose good will, and some men will be hostile to WikiChix, particularly when (referencing the first point again) you take the discussion back to males. You may not care, but if it's possible not to antagonise people, then it's preferable not to.

Ubuntu Women say, "Ubuntu-Women is not about segregation of women, rather its goal is to integrate women as equals within the mainstream development going on in the Ubuntu world. Remember, membership is open to all and not based on gender alone. If you want to increase diversity and encourage women in Linux please don't hesitate to speak to us." I urge you to follow their example, but otherwise keep up the good work.

— Matt Crypto 13:54, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes but Matt, how can we possibly get anything done when we will likely be fending off the kind of hostile reactions as seen recently on foundation-l and wikien-l? Who has enough goodwill in their life that they are willing to burn it daily moderating that? And how are we going to find that person when they will be accused of censorship, bias, blahblahblah just as often? --pfctdayelise 06:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
It's worked for all the other women tech organizations (deb women, ubuntu women, etc...) 80.203.102.169 07:52, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
Matt, I appreciate your rationale.
Moderation might allow opening this up to men while still avoiding hostility, etc., and allowing women to feel safe. But I get the impression that no single person wants that job.
So here's a possibility -- rotating moderators.
If this idea is taken up, I'm willing to serve about once a month. Maurreen 05:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Examples of Gender Bias

I'm a keen user of wikipedia but have contributed only in terms of tidying up pages though would like to do more. Part of my reluctance is through fear of recrimination and this is something common to a lot of discussion based/collaborative projects or places i've used on the net, another space that I find commonly patriarchal is discussion forums, particularly about 'hard' issues like politics and economics. So firstly, THANKS for beginning this discussion, even if I don't necessarily agree with seperatist spaces, and perhaps agree a bit with Matt Crypto, i recognise the desire from users for one here.

I read through the November discussion on the mailing list about this and just wanted to expand on the issue of 'women's things' being under-represented/out-dated/not as thorough as 'mens' things etc. that someone raised as an example of the systematic gender bias. The example the user (sorry I can't remember name) gave was of blowdryers and curling tongues and she was subsequently vilified for these 'stereotypical' examples by other users (itself an example of patraiarchal muscle flexing, but that's another issue).

I personally never use either of these items but I do think that the point raised was a valid one. I thought a bit more about it and came up with a couple of other examples of items that are traditionally 'women's' ie. domestic - the washing machine and the dishwasher. I had a look at the Wikipedia entries for these things and there is no mention of the social/cultural impacts these machines had, particularly on the role of women (in the West), rather the entries are very technical-focused, tracking their mechanical progress and current standards, speeds, rpms, load capacities etc.

When I was a kid my Mum told me how she was the first in her street to get a dishwasher and the whole street was gossiping - was she cheating in her domestic duties through using a machine etc. Her aquisition of a dishwasher freed up hours of her day to spend doing other things she wanted to do, like working, studying for a second degree, raising two children, being a politically active member of the community etc. I think entries on Wikipedia lack this approach ie. reference to the social impacts of products/ideas/theories/tv shows/whatever else and it is an example of systematic gender bias - What do people think of this? Thanks, Rheem (unregistered as yet) 62.30.219.144 16:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Rheem,
For sure, Wikipedia is missing a lot of "Social impacts" sections - I'm not sure if this is systemic bias or just the fact that it's so much harder to synthesise a succinct summary of a complex issue, as compared to just explain each step of how something works. You see a similar thing even with, for example, articles on music albums - many of them are just track listings - a lot easier than explaining the significance and impact of a musical work. :) cheers, pfctdayelise 13:36, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi Pfctdayelise,
Yeah, I noticed that it is the case across Wikipedia, like you mentioned in the case of music - but I just wondered whether people thought it was a problem or not really that big a deal. I'm personally usually more interested in the implications of things rather than the things themselves, although of course you need to know the 'facts' about something too - I'm not trying to heirarchicalise things here! Like someone previously has mentioned, there is the problem with getting references/citations - I know people have done work on some of the examples given (for example the social effects of washing machines) but not enough to make it up to Wikipedia's standards. Perhaps there needs to be a recognition of this on Wikipedia/in Wikipedia's standards guidelines? I don't know how workable a suggestion that is but any comments or ideas would be welcome! Rheem (unregistered as yet - have applied for it though!!!)

recent article on alternet

FYI:

Wikichix was mentioned in this article on alternet recently: [Wikipedia vs. Women?]

--Liz 06:14, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

It has led to a lot of extra subscriptions to the mailing list. I'm contacting the people who applied to confirm they are female. There are now 66 subscribers and 13 more that I'm waiting to hear back from. Angela 21:39, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment from Amgine

This is Amgine.

I just thought I'd like to make a brief comment about the "female only" character of WikiChix. I am far, far too familiar with this particular subject.

You aren't interested in "females", but rather in people who are interested in a discussion regarding gender bias in Wikis. In creating a female only space you are substituting one bias for another (not necessarily a bad thing), and failing to develop a cooperative effort toward mitigating the issue (a bad thing.)

From a feminist viewpoint, you cannot change a society by educating only half of it.

From an activist viewpoint, you get more result from a larger protest. And you don't get a larger protest by telling some of your supporters they aren't black enough, poor enough, gay enough, or female enough to be involved.

An Alternative Key To Promote Change

Why, after all of these years, are we still fighting the same battle with new generations? Is it education, and education from and for whom? Maybe it is not the male attitude we need to change, but the female attitude that needs to be changed. Women allow themselves to be objects. There seems to be an attitude that in order to succeed in life you need to fit the male-controlled media idea of what being a woman is. How can women allow their daughters to grow up thinking that being sexually attractive is the way to get what they want in life? I believe that this issue is what needs to be addressed first, then we can move on to the attitudes of the males in the industries. --Compscicris 04:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How can men allow their daughters to grow up thinking that being sexually attractive is the way to get what they want in life? pfctdayelise 12:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking action

A recent (June '07) flurry of e-mails regarding childcare at round-ups demonstrates the positive force that can be pursued through wikichix. If the group can drive every complaint or grievance towards a solution and then find ways to congeal action, this supports the incubation or greenhouse theory behind creating a separate location where women can weave a conversation on wikis.

Babette Hogan

Retrieved from "http://wikichix.org/wiki/Comments"
Personal tools