[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37746742]It's personalities that develop.
God bless Wikipedia contributors but I see all the constant contributors as most likely no-lifers. Boys end up being no-lifes more than girls do.[/QUOTE]
I think saying this is about as bad as saying that the divide happens because women are expected to be "observers" rather than "participants" in productive environments - sure, there is probably some number of no-lifer Wikipedia editors, but we have no way of knowing what ratio of editors they account for, just like there is probably some number of women who considered becoming active contributors but ultimately declined (consciously or subconsciously) due to societal roles and expectations, but [b]we have no idea how big that number actually is.[/b]
Yeah, knowing the root cause of this phenomenon would be nice, but since all we know for a fact at this point is that, since a roughly equal amount of men and women use the web, and since anyone can create a gender-ambiguous account (or even edit as a guest), women just [i]seem[/i] to feel less compelled to submit edits. Explaining it, however, would require another, more detailed study.
Probably been said before, but I think this is the result of society pressuring women to conform to a stereotypical identity.
The only women I've met who would have loved to routinely edit Wikipedia - or any other big wiki - were giant nerds, one of them a clear case of Asperger's.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37746930]Implying that contributing to publicly accessible records containing most of contemporary human knowledge isn't 'doing something useful with your life'[/QUOTE]
it really isn't compared to having a normal job and social life
[QUOTE=zugu;37749083]The only women I've met who would have loved to routinely edit Wikipedia - or any other big wiki - were giant nerds, one of them a clear case of Asperger's.[/QUOTE]
wouldn't that apply to everyone, not just women?
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37749307]wouldn't that apply to everyone, not just women?[/QUOTE]
iirc there are more male people with aspergers than female
(i could be wrong)
[QUOTE=SuperDuperScoot;37747516]oh yeah, i was totally taught to be submissive and take lesser roles
i need my ~man~ to protect me 24/7 or else im totally helpless in the kitchen
i dont use a computer, i use facebook, whats a computer
.... You personally offend me.[/QUOTE]
I never said that's how it should be. I never said I supported it.
Pick up a women's magazine and take a quick look at the general tone of the articles, now do the same with a men's mag. Notice how the language changes? how one demands while the other motivates? This divide is the biggest problem feminism faces today, largely because no one notices it (as proven by the responses in this thread). It's the root cause of the gender pay gap and it's possibly the hardest inequality to tackle because it's societal. It's not like the right to vote which can be changed by a law in parliament.
I'm sorry you interpreted my post the wrong way and I apologise for any offence.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37746808]Or you could give it a more positive twist: Women try to make something of their life instead of living in their mums basement editing wiki articles all day long?[/QUOTE]
HEY
editing wikipedia is an invaluable public service
[QUOTE=koeniginator;37749459]HEY
editing wikipedia is an invaluable public service[/QUOTE]
Does that negate the fact that it is done by adult males living in their mothers' basement?
I have a question: How would they feel alienated by the amount of boys there before information like this is published? I mean how would anyone invariably know what the gender is of someone of the internet? Isn't this kinda of a case of data making facts rather then facts making data?
Maybe the French article on female sexuality is something that men would be more inclined to view rather than women, and with more viewers comes more contributors.
[QUOTE=mobrockers2;37749921]Does that negate the fact that it is done by adult males living in their mothers' basement?[/QUOTE]
Yes, all people that contribute to an online encyclopedia are male social rejects with no form of employment.
[QUOTE=Thlis;37751032]Yes, all people that contribute to an online encyclopedia are male social rejects with no form of employment.[/QUOTE]
You mean no.
[QUOTE=theenemy;37749416]I never said that's how it should be. I never said I supported it.
Pick up a women's magazine and take a quick look at the general tone of the articles, now do the same with a men's mag. Notice how the language changes? how one demands while the other motivates? This divide is the biggest problem feminism faces today, largely because no one notices it (as proven by the responses in this thread). It's the root cause of the gender pay gap and it's possibly the hardest inequality to tackle because it's societal. It's not like the right to vote which can be changed by a law in parliament.
I'm sorry you interpreted my post the wrong way and I apologise for any offence.[/QUOTE]
You still don't get it - you can't instantly blame this on society. While both men and women do have their own sets of expectations, that doesn't mean we inherently follow them in everything we do, and it certainly doesn't mean that women who consider contributing to Wikipedia decide not to because society expects them to sit back and watch. Also, why are you talking about feminism? Assuming you were trying to use the word to talk about women and your idea of their belief sets, are you really saying the fact that women are simply less likely to submit Wiki edits is a problem? You realize this is akin to saying that [b]men who don't care about how they dress in the morning are also a problem[/b], right? There's just absolutely no data to tell us that society has anything at all to do with this. Maybe it just takes being a nerd to some extent to be an editor, and men happen to more often be nerdy than women. Maybe women don't find it as worthwhile to contribute. [i]Maybe[/i] societal expectations plays a part, but we'd need to do another study before we can even suggest that's even a factor in the first place. This has nothing to do with the right to vote because anyone can vote or edit Wikipedia, there are no logistical barriers to women in both cases.
[QUOTE=thisispain;37746792]except that's a little bit far from the truth, 68% of men use the internet while 66% of women use the internet.
the question to ask here is why Wikipedia shows a huge disconnect. i think it's a little [i]early[/i] to make judgements about it.[/QUOTE]
Well, the majority of the population uses the Internet. How many of them use it [I]heavily[/I] though, to the level of being a recurring Wikipedia editor?
the graph doesn't measure recurring edits, it just measures edits
Well still, it's usually pretty hardcore internet users who edit in the first place I would imagine.
I'm a turbonerd and I only very rarely edit Wikipedia. It's very intimidating.
[QUOTE=Elecbullet;37755681]Well still, it's usually pretty hardcore internet users who edit in the first place I would imagine.
I'm a turbonerd and I only very rarely edit Wikipedia. It's very intimidating.[/QUOTE]
any time I come across a mistake on a page, I correct it. you're not going to get banned for fixing a spelling or formatting error or something
Yeah, that's me. I am too timid to actually add information for the most part. I just see broken shit and fix it.
They won't even ban you if you massively screw up. They'll paste a template on your talk page that says "Hi! Welcome to Wikipedia. Unfortunately, your most recent edit..."
I saw the article for a 90s video game claiming it was a palette swap and I just had to change that, because it wasn't.
Wikipedia editing isn't as anonymous as people think. There a fairly small community of contributors who write the majority of articles. Of course there are people who do one-off edits, but the primary contributors are few in number and contribute a large amount. It's been known for a long time that the usual male wikipedia editors turn off women editors (sexual harassment, etc). It's ultimately a hostile environment for women.
GROUNDBREAKING NEWS FROM GIZMODO
[QUOTE=theenemy;37747212]I had a bet on with a friend as to whether the reaction would be positive or negative, I won :v:[/QUOTE]
so basically you were posting as a gimmick
bOis rule gerls drool
[QUOTE=mblunk;37753489]You still don't get it - you can't instantly blame this on society. While both men and women do have their own sets of expectations, that doesn't mean we inherently follow them in everything we do, and it certainly doesn't mean that women who consider contributing to Wikipedia decide not to because society expects them to sit back and watch. Also, why are you talking about feminism? Assuming you were trying to use the word to talk about women and your idea of their belief sets, are you really saying the fact that women are simply less likely to submit Wiki edits is a problem? You realize this is akin to saying that [b]men who don't care about how they dress in the morning are also a problem[/b], right? There's just absolutely no data to tell us that society has anything at all to do with this. Maybe it just takes being a nerd to some extent to be an editor, and men happen to more often be nerdy than women. Maybe women don't find it as worthwhile to contribute. [i]Maybe[/i] societal expectations plays a part, but we'd need to do another study before we can even suggest that's even a factor in the first place. This has nothing to do with the right to vote because anyone can vote or edit Wikipedia, there are no logistical barriers to women in both cases.[/QUOTE]
As I've already said I was SPECULATING. I never even said this divide was a bad thing I was just HYPOTHESIZING that it was a symptom of a reasonably well known divide in societal standing.
I was talking about feminism as a side note, it had nothing to do with the article. I was only mentioning how the thing that might have cause the divide the article just so happens to be feminism's greatest challenge.
[QUOTE=theenemy;37757892]As I've already said I was SPECULATING. I never even said this divide was a bad thing I was just HYPOTHESIZING that it was a symptom of a reasonably well known divide in societal standing.
I was talking about feminism as a side note, it had nothing to do with the article. I was only mentioning how the thing that might have cause the divide the article just so happens to be feminism's greatest challenge.[/QUOTE]
You didn't do a thing to acknowledge you were speculating in your original post, you just posted your interpretation as if you knew exactly what was going on, which is why you drew so much flak.
[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;37746641]
Interesting example: on the French Wikipedia, the article on female sexuality has a 16:1 ratio of M/F contributors.[/QUOTE]
Every French male confirmed to be a pervert.
[QUOTE=thisispain;37746806]uh who are you saying carry on to?[/QUOTE]
[i]"Carry on my wayward son!"[/i]
:v:
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
