Is There a Female Gender Bias in Wikipedia?

[thespin]

Simple! Women don't play fair for the most part, and they also have control issues. So they end up tearing each other's hair out, or a man has to play referee which men do much better than women. Emotion - iy's a bummer - ask any man!!

 

[K-zon]

Could be plotten to say, like if the issue to say of revert is in the topic and it gets changed, probably won't get "comprehended" till later if even then.

By then its probably another say female on the issue to correct, but only to find out of the issue before hand and leave.

But think this is where they buddy group idea of things comes in and rather directly or indirectly. So like on ideas of say more or less males to say might find the place for it without even being kinda stereotypical.

Still again of it though, if there was probably more females though males probably wouldn't be able to edit at all. Least females still get to edit.

Idk, this one probably the most "subjective" and perspective of all, but still.

Otherwise, think it wouldn't matter, but still. Some say there is no Females on the internet anyways, but thats kinda out there.

But in light of say recent interest of news for Wikipedia though, does put some insight of highlight.

 

[K-zon]

the buddy group* or just buddy group*

 

[Thunderfox]

What exactly constitutes an article that is 'geared towards women'? What is it that women supposedly want to see on Wikipedia that isn't there? Is it content itself, or is it the way that the existing content is presented?

Examples of what is supposedly wrong would be useful, as without them this just sounds like vague social politics rather than an actual problem.

 

[amirp]

[citation][nom]AbdullahG[/nom]Please, if you guys are going to bring up sexist remarks, do it somewhere else. This isn't a website for people like you, it is for people with at least an average IQ (that would be +100). Then again, I highly doubt you have an IQ above 25...[/citation]

lol buddy it was a joke,... and for the record there is a 97.8% chance that my IQ is higher than yours, it is just simple statistics.

 

[eddieroolz]

Frankly I don't care. If the females are whining (they haven't yet) about bias then get out there and contribute. There aren't any male coworkers staring at you while you edit an article, nor are there any pressure from other males. Simple as that.

 

[Twoboxer]

First of all, who cares?

Secondly, there are apparently a bunch of people at the University of Minnesota who believe men and women are identical. They are in for a world full of surprises, and plenty more opportunities to waste grant money on useless studies.

 

[pirateboy]

girls have titties

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]Gamer-girl[/nom]It could be that the majority of females do not classify editing Wikipedia as fun or enjoyable - that would be the simplest explanation. It could also be that because anything that is a male dominated area, most males act differently than if they were in a 50/50 group. Am i wrong? Do you you guys act differently if you think that there are no girls around that can see or hear you?If any girl shows interest in a male orientated subject she will have to deal with the stereotype of females not being able to contribute anything worth while to the subject. Also girls have *feelings* and tend to take things personally. - This is also based on my own experience,[/citation]

sup, im male, i act no different around women than i do around men. basically i act in real life the same way i do as though im anon on 4chan's /b/.

granted i have been escorted out of many stores for this, such as my favorite one being a walmart.

 

[outlw6669]

[citation][nom]anon23333333[/nom]It couldnt possibly be a lack of intellect[/citation]
[citation][nom]SILVER565[/nom]Heck the CEO of Yahoo is a woman.[/citation]
Erm, about that

 

[johnsmithhatesVLC]

I think that just proves females are inferior writers not sexism. Compare the amount of great male writers against amount of females.

 

[bv90andy]

Maybe it's just a reflection of the total number of people on the internet who do something else other then shopping and facebook?

 

[serendipiti]

Im getting a little tired of some discussions (sexism, racism) getting so much attention, we take things to a such degree that I think we should prioritize (what is the point on getting into a sex-war just because of a silly wiki-stat while childs die in Africa...) I feel that when the stat shows something positive about women then we must love stats and stats are the only truth, but when it shows (or it is shown as) something negative, women complain (not too strange, after all). Men and women are different. Stating that differences it is not necessarily sexism. Society changed a lot last century and we need to find a new balance, ok (just don't forget we found some kind of balance that lasted thousands of years). It's a matter of self-criticism...

 

[becherovka]

Might have something to do with females spending so much time on facebook they have no interest in anything else.

 

[DSpider]

Maybe if they make the Wikipedia logo pink, add flowers and shit. Oh, and some form of social network where teh womenz can chat and gossip and get direct feedback about soap operas, Justin Timberlake (Bieber?) and then they'll eventually start to flock to Wikipedia. You'll see.

 

[killerclick]

Female interests lie in things/people they have a personal connection/relationship to.

 

[eiskrystal]

Snort, the comments here tell you exactly why a male dominated site like wikipedia is biased. Since juvenile over-entitled male babies seem to be the order of the day.

 

[swamprat]

Following on from the recent anonymity discussions - how sure are they that the male contributors are male rather than females that expect discrimination against females and thus lie?
Hmm, having a quick look it doesn't seem to be publicly shared. That'd make it quite a stretch for the difference to be due to a lot of paranoid females / people leaving default settings.

 

[x3style]

I'm so tired of this we are all equal bullshit. We are not all equal some are smarter some are stupider, but gender related i mean you'd think we have 2 genders to be equal? Each gender has superior abilities in the fields that where required by nature to be efficient at surviving. There's stuff that males excel at and there's stuff that females excel at. Why should we all be good a everything.

 

[Guest]

Seriously. It says only 16% of editors were women. There is nothing stopping women from editing, so right there it tells you that women aren't interested. It also says right there that women are 2x as likely to edit ones about controversial or contentious topics. So you are going to expect their entries to be reverted or changed. Given this info, did we compare stats on just controversial topics, it would probably show the same reject rate. This is also why they would "more likely" (IE 51% to 49%), because if 2x your posting are controversial, you will be banned to get you to stop changing them (they don't want posts a lot of updates on controversial issues). In fact, I doubt anyone on there knows it's a female editing. The conclusion from this is that it isn't mean that are biased against women on wikipedia. It's women who are biased against Wikipedia since the root is that only 16% of them show up to edit, and clearly they don't want to post on the non-controversial issues, which shows they are more casual editors at that.. meaning only willing to edit on things that are exciting and not interested in the mundane.. which means they just move on to something else.