Quote of the Day

by JS

It seems odd that women are drastically underrepresented at Wikipedia when women in graduate school outnumber men. This means that there is more to the story, possibly more issues — cough, sexism — which Wikipedia must investigate to figure out what gives when it comes to their lack of women contributors.

I find it difficult to imagine a more egalitarian platform than Wikipedia, so if Wikipedia is sexist then there’s really no hope for any organization not being sexist. Consider that Wikipedia, as a platform, knows virtually nothing about anyone who participates. Even when an editor misbehaves, it is often difficult to figure out who that person is.

That’s not to say that a Wikipedia gender gap isn’t real. You’ll just have to look outside of Wikipedia for the cause.

UPDATE: What I haven’t considered is that while Wikipedia may itself by egalitarian in design, it certainly allows sexists to edit as freely as feminists. As my wife puts it, “You can express prejudice without directing that prejudice against its object.” As such, the anonymity in the design doesn’t really offer any protection from sexism. While the egalitarian nature of the design certainly allows for counter edits, who has the time? That, and the multitude of complex social factors that affect the parity of men and women in online communities suggests that this is a more complex question than I initially suspected.