Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Why Women Have No Time For Wikipedia

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the busy-doing-real-stuff dept.

Wikipedia 579

Andreas Kolbe writes Wikipedia is well known to have a very large gender imbalance, with survey-based estimates of women contributors ranging from 8.5% to around 16%. This is a more extreme gender imbalance than even that of Reddit, the most male-dominated major social media platform, and it has a palpable effect on Wikipedia content. Moreover, Wikipedia editor survey data indicate that only 1 in 50 respondents is a mother – a good proportion of female contributors are in fact minors, with women in their twenties less likely to contribute to Wikipedia. Wikimedia Foundation efforts to address this "gender gap" have so far remained fruitless. Wikipedia's demographic pattern stands in marked contrast to female-dominated social media sites like Facebook and Pinterest, where women aged 18 to 34 are particularly strongly represented. It indicates that it isn't lack of time or family commitments that keep women from contributing to Wikipedia – women simply find other sites more attractive. Wikipedia's user interface and its culture of anonymity may be among the factors leading women to spend their online time elsewhere.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Obvious Reason (2, Funny)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 2 months ago | (#47781709)

They are too busy complaining about the gender gap.

Re:Obvious Reason (5, Funny)

amiga3D (567632) | about 2 months ago | (#47781715)

With good reason. It's obvious by this that Wikipedia isn't doing enough to attract women to contribute. Such a small representation among women is shameful and certainly something must be done to address this glaring example of gender bias.

Re:Obvious Reason (5, Informative)

aeschinesthesocratic (1359449) | about 2 months ago | (#47781729)

Have you edited Wikipedia lately? It's a fucking nightmare of committee-watched articles and instantaneous reversions.

Maybe women just want to put nice things on pinterest instead of arguing about pedantic bullshit all day.

Re:Obvious Reason (3, Interesting)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 months ago | (#47781899)

Have you edited Wikipedia lately? It's a fucking nightmare of committee-watched articles and instantaneous reversions.

There we go, the real reason.

I mean, face it, men are just more willing to be the trolls and make life miserable for each other. Women see that and avoid the whole issue altogether.

We saw it with that article on games vs. women article. They simply see what happens as basically a bunch of horny teenagers with ragers going on, and simply steer clear to avoid the trouble. Wikipedia is the same - it's no better in the end.

Now, whether or not having women think all people who enjoy videogames or use wikipedia are immature teenagers is a good thing or a bad thing, I don't know. It just makes the entire population no better than construction workers who catcall women as they pass on the street. So much for intelligence, I guess?

Re:Obvious Reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781963)

+1 mod for "horny teenagers with boners." been there, done that. seriously tho, i actually know a little bit about a particular thing (subject matter in my field) and thought I would correct an egregious error on the topic in wikipedia. reverted immediately, a waste of my time. smell ya later, wiki. i have better things to do.

Re: Obvious Reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782143)

Horny teenagers with boners are your field? What are you, a pedo escort?

Re:Obvious Reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781977)

Who decides that being a troll is not good?
I enjoy watching trolls go to work. I think that's one of the most entertaining parts of the internet.
If women don't like it, maybe they should make their own wikipedia, instead of trying to change this one which is fine the way it is imho.

Re:Obvious Reason (5, Funny)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#47782023)

If women don't like it, maybe they should make their own wikipedia,

Chickipedia?

Re:Obvious Reason (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782033)

I mean, face it, men are just more willing to be the trolls and make life miserable for each other.

I resent this sexist statement

Re:Obvious Reason (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782147)

If the recent glut of SJWers is anything to go by, it's only sexist if it's against men. Specifically heterosexual white men.

Re:Obvious Reason (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781971)

Or maybe "pedantic bullshit" is the only way to manage a project like Wikipedia, and choosing not to take part in that also means choosing not to contribute.

Re:Obvious Reason (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781765)

Agreed. Emphases should be on feeling instead of facts. A big problem on Wikipedia is that most edit hurt feelings, especially when you write a lengthy article about your favourite celebrity and someone come behind you and rape all your work with facts. Such senseless rigour are symptom of the patriarchy.

It is difficult for women to compete with men, because of this men should make place for more diversity. Wikipedia should empower women to express themselves free or peer judgement, divergent opinion or fact check.

Re:Obvious Reason (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781819)

I think a contributing factor is the active, noisy presence of deletionists. They sure bother me. It's like they put up a big "go away" sign.

Re:Obvious Reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781853)

AC, you're my hero.

Re:Obvious Reason (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781807)

What do you mean by gender bias? Does wikipedia need to do something special to attract girl? That would be gender bias. The way it works now is gender equality, and it's nobody's fault that women have other interests in mind.
But nevermind me, let me hear your suggestions on making this site better suited to women!

Re:Obvious Reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781821)

With good reason. It's obvious by this that Wikipedia isn't doing enough to attract women to contribute. Such a small representation among women is shameful and certainly something must be done to address this glaring example of gender bias.

Why is it shameful?

Re:Obvious Reason (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781823)

Absolutely. For one, articles about persons should feature more about their spouses. The UI needs an overhaul - more pictures and a text cap would help. Every article should also feature a video as a requirement. Article texts should be prose, heavy use of internal monologues is always popular. Females like to read about females - there should be more articles about important historic females; a fixed ratio should help - requiring at least 40% about women is the least we can demand. Lastly, historic events and articles about persons should be required to examine the emotions accompanying the events of interest - we know too little about how for instance Einstein felt when imposing the speed of light or what was going on with Stalin when he found out Hitler was double crossing him. Mao Zedongs marriage is only mentioned twice in his Wikipedia article and Mrs. Zedongs side of the story isn't mentioned at all!

Re:Obvious Reason (1)

ko7 (1990064) | about 2 months ago | (#47781921)

Should "Fifty Shades of Gray" be the New Black?

Re:Obvious Reason (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781907)

Umm why should they work to attract women. Seriously, I am not trolling why should Wikipedia or any other company try to attract women specifically about the only thing they should do is to make it so that people don't run them off but other than that there is no reason for any other attempts to attract them.

I am sick and tired of women complaining about gender imbalance. From my experience most women are more likely to complain about the gender imbalance rather than actually do something about it.

Re:Obvious Reason (4, Insightful)

sound+vision (884283) | about 2 months ago | (#47782011)

What should they be doing to "attract women"? For that matter, what are they doing to "attract men"? Could it be perhaps that the nature of encyclopedic editing appeals more to men? No, that'd be too easy and go against what feminists and their cohorts have been beating into me for decades... must continue with forcing "equality" through perverse incentives instead of promoting equal opportunity and cooperation between men and women...

Why is it "shameful"? (5, Insightful)

Fred Mitchell (3717323) | about 2 months ago | (#47782071)

There are obvious differences in general in how men and women tend to socialize. We should own up to these differences and stop pretending they do not exist.

It's not like there is anyone out there telling women that they cannot contribute to Wikipedia or Open Source projects or even Redis. If you want to participate, then just DO it already.

And so, I find the attempts to "attract women" just so we can continue to hide our heads in the sand about the natural skew of participation due to NO ONE'S FAULT to be a wash.

I welcome women, of course, but don't believe in these rather condescending "outreach" programs. They always fail because they all are about ignoring the hard realities of human nature.

Re: Obvious Reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781937)

Women try to avoid conflict

Re: Obvious Reason (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782005)

A knife in the back is preferred to face to face conflict

Re:Obvious Reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782017)

Truth is, women prefer their efforts to have real world effects. Relationships, friendships, talking = experience. Reading and writing, not so much.

Take a step outside the bubble and stop believing the gender gap crap. Contribute to real life. Building an encyclopedia of knowledge isn't in the best interest of people who like living, breathing, human interaction.

Cheers.

Re:Obvious Reason (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782099)

Wikipedia authors are too busy examining each others assholes to each other to notice the gender gap.

Nerds are nerds, and female nerds have a lot of the same interests as male nerds. But the content that gets put into wikipedia is all nerd-centric. Fashion, anime and manga tends to be very very popular with women. Men are very interested in competitive sports, guns, and violent video games.

That's the clear gender divide. The less clear is social issues. Take the Anita Sarkeesian thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anita_Sarkeesian

One paragraph on current level harassment "issue"
"On August 27, 2014, the video game website Polygon reported that in the wake of the issuance of a new Tropes vs Women in Games episode focused on the "Women as Background Decoration" trope, harassment of Sarkeesian had reached such high levels that she announced she had been forced to leave her home. She is quoted as having posted on Twitter, "Some very scary threats have just been made against me and my family. Contacting authorities now," followed by a later tweet, "I'm safe. Authorities have been notified. Staying with friends tonight. I'm not giving up. But this harassment of women in tech must stop!"[44]"

This is the exact same kind of thing women are being told to expect if they venture into male dominated spaces. Wikipedia is just one of many spaces where women do not feel welcome even slightly.

Discrimination (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781711)

Well the genders are identical so it must be some social factor that the patriarchy is responsible for creating.

Re:Discrimination (5, Insightful)

craigminah (1885846) | about 2 months ago | (#47781759)

How about we admit men and women are different, with different interests, and desires? Who gives a crap if men and women do the same thing as long as nothing stopping them from trying? Eliminate discrimination from the selection process and I bet women still don't give a crap about Wikipedia or many other "male-dominated" fields...why must we force equal distribution of gender/race/etc in everything? Again, make sure the selection process is fair and let things be.

Re:Discrimination (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781827)

Hmmm. Let's see: following your train of thought, Wikipedia- viewed by some as the encyclopedia of all useful human knowledge - should always be mostly written by men. I'd say you've got serious Mommy issues, like most misogynists.

Re:Discrimination (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781857)

should always be mostly written by men.

He did not say that it should be. That's your straw man. He said there should be equality of opportunity, and that people should do what they want.

I'd say you've got serious Mommy issues, like most misogynists.

I'm not sure how you could conclude that he's a misogynist from his post saying that he wants equality of opportunity.

Re:Discrimination (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781875)

Check your privilege!

Re:Discrimination (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 months ago | (#47781879)

Also why is it that WP should do more to appeal to females but FB doesn't need to do more to appeal to males? An individual or organisation that tries too hard to appeal to everybody, ends up appealing to nobody. Self exclusion is not discrimination, it plain old "personal taste".

Re:Discrimination (1)

DrLang21 (900992) | about 2 months ago | (#47781975)

Also why is it that WP should do more to appeal to females but FB doesn't need to do more to appeal to males?

Uhh, because 64/36 female/male user ratio isn't that far out of line. That aside, I'm sure there are top men in Facebook working to pull in a greater number of men while not pushing out their female user base. Top men.

Wikimedia Foundation doesn't neccessarily need to do more to appeal to women and they are not suggesting that they do. But it is certainly in their interest to understand why such an extreme gap exists.

Re:Discrimination (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782153)

How about we admit men and women are different, with different interests, and desires? Who gives a crap if men and women do the same thing as long as nothing stopping them from trying? Eliminate discrimination from the selection process and I bet women still don't give a crap about Wikipedia or many other "male-dominated" fields...why must we force equal distribution of gender/race/etc in everything? Again, make sure the selection process is fair and let things be.

Because, to "enlightened" people, sexism against men is A-OK.

COMRADES (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781717)

Wikimedia Foundation efforts to address this "gender gap" have so far remained fruitless

Clearly the solution is to round up these capitalist, bourgeois women and force them to edit Wikipedia. FOR THE GOOD OF THE MOTHERLAND.

Protip, chucklefucks - men and women are different, and in a free society, you're not going to get equal representation of genders, sexual orientations, religions, races, et cetera. People. Like. Different. Things.

And that's a-o-fucking-kay.

Foul language because I'm tired of feel-good quota idiocy.
 

Yet another attack on Anonymity (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781719)

Yes i am aware of the irony of posting this AC. Though i prefer to think it makes my point.

Any time someone attacks anonymity, ask what they stand to gain by it. Ask what the platform that is promoting their article or post has to gain by it.

http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2014/05/cyberbll.html

Read this, it'll open your eyes.

Re:Yet another attack on Anonymity (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782121)

The summary doesn't imply that anonymity is inherently negative. It only implies that women are less interested in using social media sites that have a culture of 0anonymity. This could be due to the fact that anonymous systems allow men to harass them more easily without repercussions, or it could mean that women simply prefer non-anonymous systems. The text doesn't make any claims one way or the other.

Also that article you linked is shit.

Oh well (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781723)

Lets file a deletion request for that patriarchistic imperialistic Wikipedia!

why the focus on gender balance? (5, Insightful)

walshy007 (906710) | about 2 months ago | (#47781733)

Wikimedia Foundation efforts to address this "gender gap" have so far remained fruitless.

Why must everything be gender balanced? Why not let women do what they want instead of trying to force them in to places that aren't necessarily their thing?

If women are actors instead of objects, they can make their own damn choices and do what they want to do without requiring others to try to sweeten the deal specifically for them to try to entice them.

Re:why the focus on gender balance? (5, Insightful)

hsthompson69 (1674722) | about 2 months ago | (#47781845)

I like that - "actors instead of objects". That's a great turn of phrase.

And it emphasizes that any sort of gender/race/sexual orientation re-balancing is at its essence *objectifying* people. It's asserting that they must be defined by some label, and must obey some sort of normal distribution because of that label.

No doubt, history is filled with all kinds of evil misogyny, racism, and homophobia...and large swaths of the planet still have those problems, especially in the islamic world. But we lose sight of the truth, that people are individual *actors*, not *objects*, all too often. Fighting the scourges of discrimination of various sorts doesn't lead to some predetermined statistical balance, it gives individual actors the *freedom* to make the choices they'd like. Sometimes, those free choices are lopsided, and that's *okay*.

Re:why the focus on gender balance? (1)

TapeCutter (624760) | about 2 months ago | (#47781991)

"misogyny, racism, and homophobia" were all considered pollitically correct in their day, and that's exacty what was wrong with them. Political correctness in the opposite direction is no better because it's also predicated on an ideologically driven notion of "balance". Telling women they should be on WP is no different to telling them they belong in the kitchen.

Re: why the focus on gender balance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782159)

Do you mean, like, barefoot and editing?

Re:why the focus on gender balance? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782025)

> Sometimes, those free choices are lopsided, and that's *okay*.

And yet when the gender ratio is so massively skewed it is obvious that women are choosing to "act" in response to something. Lacking a plausible explanation for that skewing other than the fact that they are women just takes you back to treating them as objects.

Re:why the focus on gender balance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782133)

No one thinks that women are objects like rocks. No one. Especially not people who merely disagree about what the cause is. That is your own delusion. How does it feel to live in a separate reality from everyone else?

Re:why the focus on gender balance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782171)

> Especially not people who merely disagree about what the cause is

And what. pray tell, is the cause?

Re:why the focus on gender balance? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781855)

Yes indeed. The male competitive my-edit-is-better-than yours attitude is the only one that should percolate to the top when constructing the worlds biggest encyclopedia. That way, you're guaranteed that there won't be any bias or non-NPOV content. -not-

Re:why the focus on gender balance? (2)

tgv (254536) | about 2 months ago | (#47781919)

While I can see the merit of action in classical gender gap examples, I too agree this goes to far. Imagine demanding a quotum on Pinterest: no more women allowed until the balance is 50-50. That would be insane. Now, I know that Wikipedia has a higher standing and is consulted as authoritative, so it will be deemed more important, but Wikipedia is about providing correct information, which is unrelated to gender distribution.

I don't get it either, unless it's about money, somehow.

Re:why the focus on gender balance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781961)

Wikimedia Foundation efforts to address this "gender gap" have so far remained fruitless.

Why must everything be gender balanced? Why not let women do what they want instead of trying to force them in to places that aren't necessarily their thing?

If women are actors instead of objects, they can make their own damn choices and do what they want to do without requiring others to try to sweeten the deal specifically for them to try to entice them.

While I fully support your last paragraph, I would really like to start a lot earlier and remove the whole 'girls don't do this'-crap ('boys don't do this' is also bad). More facts than gossip would be nice for everyone and I fear the gap is closing from the other direction as I see more boys pickup the gossip, glamour and celebrity line and will in some years focus more on facebook and talk about each other than be interested in facts. During my stay in school no male would have touched a magazine like Closer. Nowadays on every bus ride every youth reads stuff like that and twitters or updates facebook about their hangover.

Re:why the focus on gender balance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781997)

I don't think the idea is that everything should be gender balanced. Instead, women should outnumber men in all fields of endeavor. Because, well, ..., social justice, or something.

Re:why the focus on gender balance? (3, Insightful)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 2 months ago | (#47782009)

Why must everything be gender balanced? Why not let women do what they want instead of trying to force them in to places that aren't necessarily their thing?

When a huge chunk of the human race chooses en masse not to participate in something when there's no particular reason they shouldn't - the intelligent person wonders why and tries to correct the problem. Folks like you just ask vapid questions and perpetuate ignorance and bias.

Re:why the focus on gender balance? (5, Insightful)

walshy007 (906710) | about 2 months ago | (#47782061)

the intelligent person wonders why

I have no problem with this, it's always helpful to try to figure out how something came to be.

and tries to correct the problem.

This can be problematic. We can try to figure out what influences the male muscovy duck to hold the female down and force copulation for example, but why is it a "problem"? and why should it be "fixed"?

Since when is people choosing what they want a "problem" that deserves "fixing" with indue influence?

Science is a tool used to try to figure out how things are, it doesn't judge them as morally good or bad.

Re:why the focus on gender balance? (-1, Troll)

DerekLyons (302214) | about 2 months ago | (#47782123)

Are the drugs you're on actually legal? Or have large portions of your brain been surgically removed? Because your reply indicates that you in no way comprehended what I wrote. Hell, it doesn't indicate any significant connection to the real world.

Re:why the focus on gender balance? (2, Insightful)

Mashiki (184564) | about 2 months ago | (#47782125)

Why must everything be gender balanced?

Because the "social justice warriors" tell you it must be. And if they don't get their way, they'll whine, cry, and call it rape.

Re:why the focus on gender balance? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782149)

It's just data. Data gives you a window into what is going on, and let's you explore the culture and see if maybe there is something wrong or not. It's the start of a conversation, not the end of it. When your gap is that wide, it really is tough to imagine that it's purely by chance, or that that many fewer women are uninterested in being editors than men. But maybe it is true. Maybe something in our culture outside of Wikipedia's control makes women uninterested in editing. But I bet no one gives enough of a shit to actually perform the study. So instead we're just left with the question.

Why would they want to? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781739)

Only the most lawful stupid contribute to Wikipedia now.

Women interested in inane social bullshit. (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781741)

Women more interested in inane social bullshit than actually learning about world history, politics, technology, industry, the arts and sciences?

Color me shocked!

Women interested in inane social bullshit. (1)

voltorb (2668983) | about 2 months ago | (#47781897)

I can vouch for you, +1.

Gender imbalance is self selected (4, Insightful)

Karmashock (2415832) | about 2 months ago | (#47781745)

Its not bias against women. its women choosing not to participate. End of argument.

Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781801)

Saying "End of argument" doesn't actually end arguments. You realize that, right buddy?

Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781841)

Yeah, you have to say "End of argument. Stamped it, double-locked it, no eraseys." Damn amateurs.

Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | about 2 months ago | (#47782091)

Yeah, but Karmashock is right. Punt his comment to the top and lets close this thread. Done!

Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781865)

How do you ensure NPOV, when entire demographic group(s) self-select out?

Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (3, Interesting)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 months ago | (#47782111)

Tautology U has taught you well. Prove women don't participate for reasons other than bias.

If the reason women don't participate is because women are more likely to have their edits reverted when people see they are done by a feminine name, then the choosing to not participate is based in bias. Asserting your preferred answer doesn't change reality, no matter how much you want it to.

Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (1)

Splab (574204) | about 2 months ago | (#47782173)

If the reason women don't participate is because women are more likely to have their edits reverted when people see they are done by a feminine name

Or you know, women could find the interface horribly bad to work with and don't find the time required to learn it well spend? Personally I can't be bothered learning the markup and thus I can't be bothered contributing.

Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (2)

ildon (413912) | about 2 months ago | (#47782165)

That's not the end of the argument. That's the beginning. Why are they choosing not to participate? Can they be encouraged to participate? Will that net a positive result? (It seems likely that it would. More varied input and points of view would likely make a site like Wikipedia better).

Re:Gender imbalance is self selected (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782191)

Wait. Are you sure? Because I was just about to write in my blog about how males are under-represented on websites related to daytime television, cooking shows, and whatever the fuck pinterest is. Some of you poor bastards are going to have to step up and "take one for the team," because it sure as heck ain't gonna be me to visit those sites, but I still demand equal gender representation on their forums!

A willingness to fight (4, Interesting)

mc6809e (214243) | about 2 months ago | (#47781749)

Men in general seem to have less tolerance for what they perceive as error and a greater willingness to fight to correct error.

That's not the say that men are more often correct than are women. They just seem more eager to do battle, even if it is from behind a keyboard.

Anyone that's been involved in an edit war of wikipedia knows that the winner is often isn't the one with the best grasp of the facts, but it's the one least willing to give up the fight.

 

Re:A willingness to fight (3, Insightful)

Dahamma (304068) | about 2 months ago | (#47781829)

Yep, that's what I was thinking. Also a seemingly inherent need to pontificate about any random philosophy, statistics, or trivia they may or may not actually be experts on.

Really, this should have been completely obvious to anyone who posts on slashdot (not to mention the gender gap here makes Wikipedia look like a bridal shower in comparison).

Re:A willingness to fight (1, Insightful)

sjwt (161428) | about 2 months ago | (#47782013)

Excuse me,

honestly I am not trying to be insulting with the usual 'have you ever been laid' crap that gets thrown around on geek sight because..

Man? Have you ever dated?? Women are the single most argumentative, must be right, cant change their minds, NEEDS AN APOLOGY EVEN WHEN PROVEN WRONG group out their.

Re:A willingness to fight (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782157)

I have often wondered about how to best provide for most women's desire to feel safe, and desired, and valued, and protected. I think the best thing to do is enslave all women, disavow any claim on their part to the myth of "human rights", and return them to the status of chattel.

Hear me out.

The advantages are many. No longer will there have to be a marriage industry, as no longer will men have to find a woman willing to marry them -- instead they'll just buy one from her owner (usually her father, at least at first). Rape culture will instantly vanish, as consent is no longer an issue. Unemployment will almost disappear, as women are removed from the work place and put into the safety and protection of the harem. Divorce will disappear, as marriage will have disappeared. Wars will be much less common, as even the lowest of nerds can buy a woman slave to see to his needs.

As property, all women will be of value. They will be protected, as any owner will look after his property. There might be a few cases of slave abuse, but surely far less than is claimed of any of today's college campuses that harbor the horrible "rape culture". The debates about "her body, her choice" will of course be rendered utterly irrelevant, as it will now be "her body is his, it's his choice". And women will of course finally be free of the need of supporting themselves, making decisions, having to avoid the consequences of their own actions (property's actions are the responsibility of the owner, of course), and figuring out what shoes to wear that day.

Sure, most women won't like this idea. So?

Re:A willingness to fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782161)

Women are the single most argumentative, must be right, cant change their minds...

That only applies when a women is secure among familiar people and can rely on the safety of cultural norms. A women will walk a mile out of her way to avoid being vulnerable among strangers that aren't filling a safe and well understood role.

You show me a single women and I'll show you a Democrat voter hanging on every campaign promise of mutual support and government security. Put the same one into a secure marriage and she'll vote Republican reliably.

Right or wrong, that's how the world really is. Given this, why does it surprise anyone that most women aren't interesting to dealing with the hostile ego-fest that is Wikipedia?

Re:A willingness to fight (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782129)

Obligatory xkcd: https://xkcd.com/385/ [xkcd.com]

Attention Whoring (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781763)

If you can't post a selfie or complain about your first world problems then contributing to Wikipedia really isn't worth the effort.

Little Boxes (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781775)

Perhaps because men are very aligned to compartmentalizing everything in little boxes and wikipedia suits this well. We like a little box for everything, it's in the male nature to do this. Wikipedia is great for looking at specific topic nuggets. I have read that women tend not to do this and flow between topics more easily rather than get hung up on single areas of interest.

Make me some food, now damnit. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781787)

They're too busy making me dinner. Now get back in the kitchen.

Userbox war (4, Interesting)

jbolden (176878) | about 2 months ago | (#47781791)

It is pretty easy to date the why. In 2006 there was a thing called the Userbox wars. There isn't a good page on wikipedia about this. Prior to 2006 Wikipedia user pages were sort of like myspace pages for wikipedia editors. They had lots of personal information and people chatted. Jimmy Wales wanted userspace to be about the encyclopedia. At the same time he didn't want mass deletions. There were mass deletions and the this wasn't easily reversed. The tone changed. This was one of the big steps towards the deletionists winning control of Wikipedia entirely. But if you want to know when the gender's changed this was a crucial moment.

Of course the deletionists winning even more battles probably didn't help

Links:
A few statements on Userboxes but not enough to understand what happened: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
What "deletionists" are and what Wikipedia was like before them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

Least important "gender gap" I've seen yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781795)

Gee, I hope there's an equally alarmist campaign seeking to rectify the inexcusable gender balance on Pinterest! What a disgrace!
Web traffic is voluntary. Let's focus our collective ire on things that matter--like gender bias in employment and research.

On the bright side (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781799)

Women (mothers) provide the housing, rather, basements, where the majority of male contributors live.

i think women in our culture are just retarded (1)

strstr (539330) | about 2 months ago | (#47781813)

as fuck. fuck women.

Re:i think women in our culture are just retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781867)

also women make up a larger chunk of gamers than men, but guess what? they don't play the same games as men, mostly PC and console games like Half Life, Halo, Silent Hill, shit like that. while men play real games, women, apparently are playing retarded games like what they find on Facebook or are tricked into getting from ads on Facebook/the like. they also play a ton of really crappy cellphone games, all of which are scams and basically don't amount to shit.

women: they avoid doing cool things, true techy things, are manipulateable, uneducated bitches who don't understand science, and are socialized bimbo's who open their legs on command. men do the real work, are the true geeks, and continue to make the best accomplishments and continue to be interested in the hottest things, while women continue to socialize and get used by men and would rather show off their bodies. they also sleep with men reviewers for positive reviews on their shitty games while making up stupid stories about sexism in the video game industry.

all the best tech sites continue to be viewed almost exclusively by men. while women get hooked on advertisements and commercial services somehow, as if some huge force has set out to steal all our women because they're more profitable to target (and dumber, because men don't fall for the same tricks).

Re:i think women in our culture are just retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781881)

Re:i think women in our culture are just retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781901)

I just realized that what Zoe Quinn was actually doing is prostitution. She is selling her body and sex for positive reviews of her games and also favors and positive press about her and her career, which ends up being turned into cash later once her games and ideas sells.

Really she should be tried for prostitution because she is receiving money indirectly and directly by having sex with powerful people in the gaming industry, all while cheating on her boyfriend.

If the laws don't consider this prostitution they should because my guess is she wouldn't be boning these big wigs at all if it weren't for the profit motive.

because... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781831)

We need more women to work on our encyclopedia because VAGINA!

women on reddit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781837)

I am a guy but the reason why there are less women on reddit is that women don't really obsess over telling their opinions about things to other people across the globe.

Re:women on reddit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782113)

Really????
Then why are there more women on Facebook and Twitter if they don't like broadcasting to the rest of the world?

For the same reason intelligence men have no time (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781847)

For the same reason intelligence men have no time for wikipedia. The whole system is rigged. Intelligent discussion is suppressed. Power-mad idiots rule, etc. There is no point participating.

There are too many NT people trying to via for position on there. It's just like other "common-folk" sites where intelligence is a hindrance and social ability (aka lying) is rule.

Simply (1)

Waraqa (3457279) | about 2 months ago | (#47781871)

Because using neutral point of view is not the job of women

Facts? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781883)

Facts?
Nah, I'd much rather post junk about blending fruit to create juice and how immunisation is evil.

I understand it. (4, Funny)

fullback (968784) | about 2 months ago | (#47781891)

Try having a fact-based discussion with a woman and see where it gets you.

On second thought, that doesn't work with men either . . .

It's quite simple (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47781939)

Women seem to have less tolerance for online bullshit than men do. It's extremely rare to find online flame wars between women for example. That's not to say women don't dwell in pointless shit and arguments, they just seem to prefer to do it in the flesh and not on a computer. Dealing with the Wikipedia hierarchy is mostly an exercise in futility and women have the uncanny ability to realize this early on whereas men are more prepared to do battle, pointlessly.

Women crave Feedback (3, Interesting)

nullchar (446050) | about 2 months ago | (#47781993)

There are no "likes" for Wikipedia edits, unlike Pinterest or Facebook posts.

Women are social creatures and require a feedback loop to keep contributing. Perhaps if we applied gamification [wikipedia.org] to Wikipedia we might get a more balanced participation as the participants would receive some feedback (positive acknowledgements, achievements, whatever) to keep them motivated to contribute.

What does being a mother have to do with it? (1)

Kris_J (10111) | about 2 months ago | (#47781999)

We don't ask if a man is a father before deciding if his views are valid, and we shouldn't assume that a woman is less of a woman if she's never given birth.

Women will not put up with deletionists. (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782037)

I know I won't. I'm a 34 year-old (as of today!) female, and I stopped contributing to Wikipedia after the asshole deletionists there deleted nineteen of my articles despite the fact that they had an average of seven citations each. Their policy is to require three citations, but the men that run that site are so hateful and hate information so much that they deleted every single one of my articles and sent a male stripper to my home with the message that they wanted to murder me and the rest of my family. That was the last time I contributed to that cesspool. They are horrible. There is no question as to why that shithole of a site contains so little information and as to why so few other women contribute. They hate us, and as they said multiple times, they want us to die.

Men Are All Sexist So Shouldn't Be Allowed To Post (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782039)

Last I checked Wikipedia was about facts and truth and gender has nothing to do with either. Cue sexist ranting about how 2+2 doesn't equal 4 if you have a vagina.

wikipediocracy, seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782051)

From the front page:

We exist to shine the light of scrutiny into the dark crevices of Wikipedia and its related projects; to examine the corruption there, along with its structural flaws; and to inoculate the unsuspecting public against the torrent of misinformation, defamation, and general nonsense that issues forth from one of the world’s most frequently visited websites, the “encyclopedia that anyone can edit.

Here come the holy knights of the true truth....

Wikipedia Calendar (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782057)

They should publish a wikipedia calendar with a naked wikipedia contributor on each page :-)

Just goes to show.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782139)

That unlike men, women are not altruistic.

Wikipedia is not about minute gossip. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782181)

And that is why no one will ever find females at writing Wikipedia articles.

Haaa Haaa Haaa.

What about real encyclopedias? (4, Interesting)

abies (607076) | about 2 months ago | (#47782187)

How the percentages look like for normal, old-school encyclopedias? I know that for example in case of school textbooks gender ratio might be even skewed towards woman (at least in my country) - which is probably a side effect of majority of teachers being woman (83%). But encyclopedias? I cannot find any data on data - but looking at chief editors of Brittanica, all of them were man...

I think that problem lies somewhere before age of 25. At some point during early education, there is some kind of bias/peer pressure/whatever which makes woman being interested in other things. Putting Hello Kitty pictures in background of wikipedia is not going to help afterwards ;)

They're just doing other things. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782193)

They're too busy pinning things to boards or something on Pintrest to write and edit things on Wikipedia. Just ask your wife/girlfriend/sister/daughter what sites she uses online. I promise facebook and pintrest are at the top of those lists.

I asked my wife why she never uses wikipedia. She said it's because she already knows everything.

This reminds me of an investigative journalist... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47782197)

Who was looking into why women don't read the newspaper, and found the reason.

"I am like the Red Queen from "Alice in Wonderland," forever running faster and getting nowhere. Entire hours evaporate while I'm doing stuff that needs to get done, but once I'm done, I can't tell you what it was I did or why it seemed so important. At work, I arrange carpools to band practice and ballet. At home, I write e-mails, and do interviews and research for work. "Just a sec," I hear my daughter mimicking me as she mothers her dolls. "Gimme a minute." She just stuck a yellow sticky note on my forehead to tear me away from writing this story, at 9:35 p.m., to remind me I'm late to come read Harry Potter for story time. Most days, I feel so overwhelmed that I barely have time to breathe.

John Robinson says I have 30 hours of leisure time every week.

Blame him for this story."

Also taken from the article:
"Robinson is a 74-year-old sociologist at the University of Maryland. Widely known as the father of time-use studies in the United States, he codes, analyzes and makes pronouncements about how people spend their precious time on Earth."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/11/AR2010011101999.html

I just can't say it any better than she does.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?