Gender bias on Wikipedia

The gender bias on Wikipedia reflects a systemic proclivity concerning female editors and articles about women stemming from a majority-male editorship on the online encyclopedia.[3][4] On the English Wikipedia, the dominant majority of volunteer editors are male, which, among other factors, contributes to a lack of female perspective in both scope and coverage across the project.[5] Overall, articles about women are less likely to be considered notable, written, expanded, neutral, and detailed.[6][7] Language that is considered sexist, loaded, or otherwise gendered has been identified in articles about women.[4] It features among the most frequent criticisms of Wikipedia, sometimes as part of a more general criticism about systemic bias in Wikipedia and its factual reliability.

Part of a series on
Discrimination
Specific forms
 

The Wikipedia Monument in Słubice, Poland features both male and female editors.[1][2] The initial model for the sculpture featured all men.

The Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, has confirmed these criticisms and, since the late-2010s, has made an ongoing attempt to increase female editorship. Former executive director of Wikimedia Sue Gardner cited nine reasons why women don't edit Wikipedia in 2011. Programs like edit-a-thons and Women in Red have been developed to encourage female editors and increase the coverage of women's topics.[8][9] In 2015, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales announced that the encyclopedia had failed to reach its goal to retain 25% female editorship;[10] the estimated portion of women editors has fluctuated from a low of 9% to a high of 20% since the founding of Wikipedia.[10][11]

Research findings and issues

The first study of world-wide presence in 2008 found that 13% of all editors were female, which, after a follow-up study in 2011, was reduced to 9% globally.[10] In the United States, especially within the English Wikipedia, a 2015 study found that 15% of contributors were women. This gender contribution has received significant attention from researchers and the media. A group of researchers and practitioners offered several opinions on why this has been an issue. The gender research literature suggests that the difference in contribution rates could be due to three factors: (1) the high levels of conflict in discussions, (2) dislike of critical environments, and (3) lack of confidence in editing other contributors' work.[12][13][14][15] Consequently, Wikipedia has been criticized by some academics and journalists for having primarily male contributors,[16][17][18] and for having fewer and less extensive articles about women or topics important to women. The New York Times pointed out that Wikipedia's female participation rate may be in line with other "public thought-leadership forums".[16] In 2009, a Wikimedia Foundation survey revealed that 6% of editors who made more than 500 edits were female, with the average male editor having twice as many edits.[19]

In the English Wikipedia and five other language editions that were studied by researchers, the ratio of articles about women to articles about men was higher than in three other databases. However, analysis with computational linguistics concluded that the way women and men are described in articles demonstrates bias, with articles about women more likely to use more words relating to gender and family. The researchers believe that this is a sign Wikipedia editors consider male the "null gender" (in other words, that "male" is assumed unless otherwise specified, an example of male as norm).[20] Another critique of Wikipedia's approach, from a 2014 Guardian editorial, is that it has difficulty making judgments about "what matters". To illustrate this point they noted that the page listing pornographic actresses was better organized than the page listing women writers.[21]

Comparison of results for the proportion of Wikipedia readers and editors from the nationally representative Pew survey and the WMF/UNU-MERIT survey (UNU) for a series of dichotomous variables in both surveys. Adjusted numbers for editors assume that response bias for editors is identical to observed response bias for readers and, in the rightmost column, that bias is stable for editors outside the United States. Table reproduced from [15].
Variable Readers US (Pew) Readers US (UNU) Editors US (UNU) Editors US Adj. Editors (UNU) Editors Adj.
female 49.0 39.9 17.8 22.7 12.7 16.1
married 60.1 44.1 30.9 36.3 33.2 38.4
children 36.0 29.4 16.4 27.6 14.4 25.3
immigrant 10.1 14.4 12.1 9.8 8.2 7.4
student 17.7 29.9 46.0 38.5 47.7 40.3

In 2010, United Nations University and UNU-MERIT jointly presented an overview of the results of a global Wikipedia survey.[22] A 30 January 2011, New York Times article cited this Wikimedia Foundation collaboration, which indicated that fewer than 13% of contributors to Wikipedia are women. Sue Gardner, then executive director of the foundation, said that increasing diversity was about making the encyclopedia "as good as it could be". Factors the article cited as possibly discouraging women from editing included the "obsessive fact-loving realm", associations with the "hard-driving hacker crowd", and the necessity to be "open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists".[16] In 2013, the results of the survey were challenged by Hill and Shaw using corrective estimation techniques to suggest upward corrections to the data from the survey and to recommend updates to the statistics being surveyed, giving 22.7% for adult US female editors and 16.1% overall.[15]

In February 2011, The New York Times followed up with a series of opinions on the subject under the banner, "Where Are the Women in Wikipedia?"[23] Susan C. Herring, a professor of information science and linguistics, said that she was not surprised by the Wikipedia contributors' gender gap. She said that the often contentious nature of Wikipedia article "talk" pages, where article content is discussed, is unappealing to many women, "if not outright intimidating".[24] Joseph M. Reagle reacted similarly, saying that the combination of a "culture of hacker elitism", combined with the disproportionate effect of high-conflict members (a minority) on the community atmosphere, can make it unappealing. He said, "the ideology and rhetoric of freedom and openness can then be used (a) to suppress concerns about inappropriate or offensive speech as "censorship" and (b) to rationalize low female participation as simply a matter of their personal preference and choice."[25] Justine Cassell said that although women are as knowledgeable as men, and as able to defend their point of view, "it is still the case in American society that debate, contention, and vigorous defense of one’s position is often still seen as a male stance, and women’s use of these speech styles can call forth negative evaluations."[26]

The International Journal of Communication published research by Reagle and Lauren Rhue that examined the coverage, gender representation, and article length of thousands of biographical subjects on the English-language Wikipedia and the online Encyclopædia Britannica. They concluded that Wikipedia provided better coverage and longer articles in general, that Wikipedia typically has more articles on women than Britannica in absolute terms, but Wikipedia articles on women were more likely to be missing than articles on men relative to Britannica. That is, Wikipedia dominated Britannica in biographical coverage, but more so when it comes to men. Similarly, one might say that Britannica is more balanced in whom it neglects to cover than Wikipedia. For both reference works, article length did not consistently differ by gender.[27]

In April 2011, the Wikimedia Foundation conducted its first semi-annual Wikipedia survey. It suggested that 9% of Wikipedia editors are women. It also reported, "Contrary to the perception of some, our data shows that very few women editors feel like they have been harassed, and very few feel Wikipedia is a sexualized environment."[28] However, an October 2011 paper at the International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration found evidence that suggested that Wikipedia may have "a culture that may be resistant to female participation".[29]

A study published in 2014 found that there is also an "Internet skills gap" with regard to Wikipedia editors. The authors found that the most likely Wikipedia contributors are high-skilled men and that there is no gender gap among low-skilled editors, and concluded that the "skills gap" exacerbates the gender gap among editors.[30] During 2010–14, women made up 61% of participants of the college courses arranged by the Wiki Education Foundation program that included editing Wikipedia as part of the curriculum. Their contributions were found to shift the Wikipedia content from pop-culture and STEM towards social sciences and humanities.[31]

In 2016, Wagner et al.[32] found that gender inequality manifests itself in Wikipedia's biographical content in multiple ways, including unequal thresholds for determining a subject's notability, topical bias, linguistic bias, and structural inequalities. The authors found that when editors determine if a subject is notable enough to include on Wikipedia, they hold women to a higher standard of notability, resulting in women on Wikipedia being slightly more notable than men on Wikipedia. As for topical bias, biographies about women tend to focus more on family-, gender-, and relationship-related topics. This is especially true for biographies of women born before 1900. The authors also found structural differences in terms of meta-data and hyperlinks, which have consequences for information-seeking activities.

A 2017 study found that women participating in an experiment by editing a Wikipedia-like site tended to view other editors as male, and to view their responses as more critical than if the other editor was gender-neutral. The study concluded that:[33]

...visible female editors on Wikipedia and broader encouragement of the use of constructive feedback may begin to alleviate the Wikipedia gender gap. Furthermore, the relatively high proportion of anonymous editors may exacerbate the Wikipedia gender gap, as anonymity may often be perceived as male and more critical.

A study by Ford and Wajcman observes that research on the gender bias continues to frame the problem as a deficit in women. In contrast, their central argument states that infrastructure studies in feminist technoscience allows the gender analysis to be taken to a further level. It looks at three issues within the infrastructure: content policies, software, and the legalistic framework of operation. It suggests that progress can be made through altering that culture of knowledge production through encouraging alternate knowledge, reducing the technical barriers to editing, and addressing the complexity of Wikipedia policies.[34]

In February 2018, in the Pipeline of Online Participation Inequalities, Shaw and Hargittai concluded from their studies that to solve the problems of participation inequality including gender bias requires a broader focus on subjects other than inequality.[35] They recommended a focus on encouraging participants of all educational backgrounds, skill levels, and age groups will help Wikipedia to improve. They recommended further that informing more women that Wikipedia is free to edit and open to everyone is critical in eliminating gender bias.[35]

In March 2018, mathematician Marie A. Vitulli wrote in Notices of the American Mathematical Society, "The percentage of women editors on Wikipedia remains dismally low."[36]

In October 2018, when Donna Strickland won a Nobel Prize in Physics, numerous write-ups mentioned that she did not previously have a Wikipedia page. A draft had been submitted, but was rejected for not demonstrating "significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject".[37][38][39]

In 2014, Noopur Raval, a PhD candidate at UC Irvine, wrote in The Encyclopedia Must Fail!- Notes on Queering Wikipedia, that "making a platform open access does not automatically translate to equality of participation, ease of access, or cultural acceptance of the medium."[40] In 2017, researchers Matthew A. Vetter and Keon Mandell Pettiway explain that the white, cis-gendered male dominance amongst Wikipedia editors has led to the "erasure of non-normative gender and sexual identities," in addition to cis-gendered females. The "androcentric and heteronormative discourses" of Wikipedia editing insufficiently allow "marginalized gender and sexual identities to take part in language use and the construction of knowledge."[41]

Possible causes
Former Wikimedia Foundation executive director Sue Gardner provided nine reasons, offered by female Wikipedia editors, "Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia."[42]

Several causes for this gender disparity have been suggested. A 2010 study revealed a Wikipedia female participation rate of 13 percent, observed to be close to the 15 percent overall female participation rate of other "public thought-leadership forums".[16][43] Wikipedia research fellow Sarah Stierch acknowledged that it is "fairly common" for Wikipedia contributors to remain gender-anonymous.[44] A perceived unwelcoming culture and tolerance of violent and abusive language are also reasons put forth for the gender gap.[45] According to a 2013 study,[46] another cause of the gender gap in Wikipedia is the failure to attract and retain female editors, resulting in a negative impact on Wikipedia's coverage. As well, Wikipedia "...editors that publicly identify as women face harassment" from other Wikipedia editors.[47]

Former Wikimedia Foundation executive director Sue Gardner cited nine reasons why women don't edit Wikipedia, culled from comments by female Wikipedia editors:[42]

  1. A lack of user-friendliness in the editing interface.
  2. Not having enough free time.
  3. A lack of self-confidence.
  4. Aversion to conflict and an unwillingness to participate in lengthy edit wars.
  5. Belief that their contributions are too likely to be reverted or deleted.
  6. Some find its overall atmosphere misogynistic.
  7. Wikipedia culture is sexual in ways they find off-putting.
  8. Being addressed as male is off-putting to women whose primary language has grammatical gender.
  9. Fewer opportunities for social relationships and a welcoming tone compared to other sites.

Though the proportion of female readership to male readership on Wikipedia is roughly equal (47%), females are less likely to convert themselves to editors (16%). Several studies suggest that there may be a formed culture in Wikipedia that discourages women from participating.[48][49] Lam et al. link this culture due to a disparity in male-to-female centric topics represented and edited, the tendency for female users to be more active in the social and community aspects of Wikipedia, an increased likelihood that edits by new female editors are reverted, and/or that articles with high proportions of female editors are more contentious.[48]

Collier and Bear in 2012 summarized the reason for working barriers of women in Wikipedia in three words: conflict, criticism and confidence. Conflict means online harassment, trolling and competition which women generally do not like; Criticism refers to women's unwillingness to edit someone else's work and to let their work be edited by someone else; Confidence shows that women are often not too confident about their own expertise and ability in editing and contributing to a certain work.[49] Wikipedia's free to edit policy gives Internet users an open platform, while also unconsciously breeding a competitive and critical environment that limits women's incentives to participate.

Through examining the power infrastructure of Wikipedia, Ford and Wajcman pointed out another cause that may reinforce Wikipedia's gender bias. Editing on Wikipedia requires "particular forms of sociotechnical expertise and authority that constitute the knowledge or epistemological infrastructure of Wikipedia".[50] People who are equipped with this expertise and skill are considered more likely to reach positions with power in Wikipedia. These are proposed to be predominantly men.

Studies have also considered the gender bias in Wikipedia from a historical perspective. Konieczny and Klein indicated that Wikipedia is just a part of our biased society which has a long history of gender inequality.[51] As Wikipedia records daily activities by individual editors, it serves as both "a reflection of the world" and "a tool used to produce our world".[51]

Reactions

The Wikimedia Foundation has officially held, since at least 2011 when Gardner was executive director, that gender bias exists in the project. It has made some attempts to address it but Gardner has expressed frustration with the degree of success achieved. She has also noted that "in the very limited leisure time women had, they tended to be more involved in social activities instead of editing Wikipedia. 'Women see technology more as a tool they use to accomplish tasks, rather than something fun in itself.'"[52][53] In 2011, the Foundation set a target of having 25 percent of its contributors identifying as female by 2015.[16] In August 2013, Gardner said, "I didn't solve it. We didn't solve it. The Wikimedia Foundation didn't solve it. The solution won't come from the Wikimedia Foundation."[52]

Writing for Slate in 2011, Heather Mac Donald called Wikipedia's gender imbalance a "non-problem in search of a misguided solution." Mac Donald asserted, "The most straightforward explanation for the differing rates of participation in Wikipedia—and the one that conforms to everyday experience—is that, on average, males and females have different interests and preferred ways of spending their free time."[54]

In August 2014, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales announced in a BBC interview the Wikimedia Foundation's plans for "doubling down" on the gender content gap at Wikipedia. Wales said the Foundation would be open to more outreach and more software changes.[55]

Efforts to increase female editorship
Attendees at the 2013 Women in the Arts edit-a-thon in Washington, DC

Dedicated edit-a-thons have been organized to increase the coverage of women's topics in Wikipedia and to encourage more women to edit Wikipedia.[56] These events are supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, which sometimes provides mentors and technology to help guide newer editors through the process. Recent edit-a-thons have given specific focus to topics such as Australian female neuroscientists and women in Jewish history.[57]

VisualEditor, a project funded by the Wikimedia Foundation that allows for WYSIWYG-style editing on Wikipedia, is said to be aimed in part at closing the gender gap.[58]

The Wikipedia Teahouse project was launched with the goal to provide a user-friendly environment for newcomers, with a particular goal of boosting women's participation in Wikipedia.[59]

In 2013, FemTechNet launched "Wikistorming" as a project that offers feminist scholarship and encourages Wikipedia editing as part of school and college teaching.[60]

In July 2014, the National Science Foundation announced that it would spend $200,000 to study systemic gender bias on Wikipedia.[61]

An early-2015 initiative to create a "women-only" space for Wikipedia editors was strongly opposed by Wikipedians.[62]

In the summer of 2015, the WikiProject Women in Red was launched on the English-language version of Wikipedia, focusing on the creation of new articles about notable women.[63] Mainly through its monthly virtual editathons, Women in Red encourages editors to participate in extending Wikipedia's coverage.[64][65] Thanks in part to the efforts of this project, by June 2018 some 17,000 new women's biographies had been added to Wikipedia.[66]

In 2017, Wikimedia Foundation put a funding of $500,000 in building a more encouraging environment for diversity on Wikipedia.[67]

Many Wikiprojects are committed to promoting editors' contribution on gender and female studies, which include "WikiProject women, WikiProject feminism, WikiProject gender studies, and the WikiProject countering systemic bias/gender gap task force".[68]

Expanding beyond the male/female gender binary, Wikiproject LGBT creates a space for "re/writing the inclusion and representation of LGBTQ culture into Wikipedia mainspace."[41]

In 2015, Jennifer C. Edwards, history department chairperson at Manhattan College, explained that educational institutions can use Wikipedia assignments such as encyclopedia’s gender gap analysis and coverage of female topics to inspire students to alter the current gender imbalance.[69]

gollark: Weird thing to have dedicated syntax for.
gollark: Oh, so it's meant to occur if you have just `ident (":" expr)? "=" stmt`? That's not much better.
gollark: Okay, that applies iff you have *exactly* the literal text `<ident>(: <expr>)? = <stmt>`. That will be a weird parsing edge case but sure.
gollark: Besides, *I* did not make it up.
gollark: In the absence of a spec or implementation this is entirely valid.

See also

References
  1. "Wikipedia monument to be built in Poland". The Independent. 10 October 2014. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  2. Ronson, Jacqueline. "Wikipedia Monument in Słubice, Poland Celebrates First Anniversary". Inverse. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  3. Torres, Nicole (2 June 2016). "Why Do So Few Women Edit Wikipedia?". Harvard Business Review. ISSN 0017-8012. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  4. Kleeman, Jenny (26 May 2016). "The Wikipedia wars: does it matter if our biggest source of knowledge is written by men?". www.newstatesman.com. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  5. Oremus, April Glaser, Will (9 October 2018). "How Wikipedia Deals With Vandals, Harassers, False News, and Its Diversity Problem". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  6. Harrison, Stephen (26 March 2019). "How the Sexism of the Past Reinforces Wikipedia's Gender Gap". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  7. Auerbach, David (11 December 2014). "Wikipedia Is a Rancorous, Sexist, Elitist, Stupidly Bureaucratic Mess. Can It Be Fixed?". Slate Magazine. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  8. Curtis, Cara (2019). "This physicist has written over 500 biographies of women scientists on Wikipedia". thenextweb.com. The Next Web. Archived from the original on 4 August 2019. Retrieved 10 June 2019.
  9. Wade, Jessica (11 February 2019). "This is why I've written 500 biographies of female scientists on Wikipedia". The Independent. Archived from the original on 20 May 2019. Retrieved 25 February 2020.
  10. Torres, Nicole (2 June 2016). "Why Do So Few Women Edit Wikipedia?". Harvard Business Review. ISSN 0017-8012. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  11. Balch, Oliver (28 November 2019). "Making the edit: why we need more women in Wikipedia". The Guardian. ISSN 0261-3077. Retrieved 26 June 2020.
  12. https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2145204.2145265
  13. Andrew Lih (20 June 2015). "Can Wikipedia Survive?". www.nytimes.com. Washington. Archived from the original on 21 June 2015. Retrieved 21 June 2015. ...the considerable and often-noted gender gap among Wikipedia editors; in 2011, less than 15 percent were women.
  14. Statistics based on Wikimedia Foundation Wikipedia editor surveys 2011 Archived 2 July 2017 at the Wayback Machine (Nov. 2010-April 2011) and November 2011 Archived 5 June 2016 at the Wayback Machine (April – October 2011)
  15. Hill, Benjamin Mako; Shaw, Aaron; Sánchez, Angel (26 June 2013). "The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation". PLoS ONE. 8 (6): e65782. Bibcode:2013PLoSO...865782H. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065782. PMC 3694126. PMID 23840366.
  16. Cohen, Noam (30 January 2011). "Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia's Contributor List". New York Times. Archived from the original on 3 February 2011. Retrieved 31 January 2011.
  17. Reagle, Joseph. ""Free as in sexist?": Free culture and the gender gap". First Monday. Archived from the original on 20 May 2015. Retrieved 10 October 2015.
  18. "Joseph Reagle on the gender gap in geek culture". 26 February 2013. Archived from the original on 17 November 2015. Retrieved 10 October 2015.
  19. "WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 18 April 2015.
  20. arXiv, Emerging Technology from the. "Computational Linguistics Reveals How Wikipedia Articles Are Biased Against Women". MIT Technology Review. Archived from the original on 27 September 2017. Retrieved 21 August 2017.
  21. The Guardian 2014 (London) The Guardian view on Wikipedia: evolving truth Archived 12 November 2016 at the Wayback Machine
  22. Glott, Ruediger; Schmidt, Philipp; Ghosh, Rishab (March 2010). "Wikipedia Survey: Overview Results" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 April 2010. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  23. "Where Are the Women in Wikipedia?". New York Times. 2 February 2011. Archived from the original on 15 July 2014. Retrieved 9 August 2014.
  24. Herring, Susan C. (4 February 2011). "Communication Styles Make a Difference". New York Times (opinion). Archived from the original on 24 July 2014. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  25. Reagle, Joseph M. (4 February 2011). "'Open' Doesn't Include Everyone". New York Times (opinion). Archived from the original on 15 July 2014. Retrieved 11 August 2014.
  26. Cassell, Justine (4 February 2011). "Editing Wars Behind the Scenes". New York Times (opinion). Archived from the original on 27 February 2017.
  27. Reagle, Joseph; Rhue, Lauren (2011). "Gender Bias in Wikipedia and Britannica". International Journal of Communication. Joseph Reagle & Lauren Rhue. 5: 1138–1158. Archived from the original on 22 March 2016.
  28. "Wikipedia Editors Study: Results From The Editor Survey, April 2011" (PDF). Wikipedia. April 2011. Archived (PDF) from the original on 26 December 2014. Retrieved 18 May 2014.
  29. Lam, Shyong K.; Uduwage, Anuradha; Dong, Zhenhua; Sen, Shilad; Musicant, David R.; Terveen, Loren; Reidl, John (October 2011). WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance (PDF). WikiSym'11. ACM. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 October 2013.
  30. Hargittai, Eszter; Shaw, Aaron (4 November 2014). "Mind the skills gap: the role of Internet know-how and gender in differentiated contributions to Wikipedia". Information, Communication & Society. 18 (4): 424–442. doi:10.1080/1369118X.2014.957711.
  31. Bruce Maiman (23 September 2014). "Wikipedia grows up on college campuses". The Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on 23 September 2014. Retrieved 23 September 2014.
  32. Wagner, Claudia; Graells-Garrido, Eduardo; Garcia, David; Menczer, Filippo (1 March 2016). "Women through the glass ceiling: gender asymmetries in Wikipedia". EPJ Data Science. 5 (5). arXiv:1601.04890. doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-016-0066-4.
  33. Shane-Simpson, Christina; Gillespie-Lynch, Kristen (January 2017). "Examining potential mechanisms underlying the Wikipedia gender gap through a collaborative editing task". Computers in Human Behavior. 66: 312–328. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.09.043. Archived from the original on 4 November 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
  34. Ford, Heather; Wajcman, Judy (2017). "'Anyone can edit', not everyone does: Wikipedia and the gender gap". Social Studies of Science. 47 (4): 511–527. doi:10.1177/0306312717692172. PMID 28791929. Archived from the original on 28 December 2016.
  35. Shaw, Aaron; Hargittai, Eszter (1 February 2018). "The Pipeline of Online Participation Inequalities: The Case of Wikipedia Editing". Journal of Communication. 68 (1): 143–168. doi:10.1093/joc/jqx003. ISSN 0021-9916.
  36. Vitulli, Marie A. (March 2018). "Writing Women in Mathematics into Wikipedia" (PDF). Notices of the American Mathematical Society. 65: 330–334. doi:10.1090/noti1650. Archived (PDF) from the original on 3 March 2018. Retrieved 11 October 2018.
  37. "The Nobel prize winning scientist who wasn't famous enough for Wikipedia". The Irish Times. 3 October 2018. Archived from the original on 3 October 2018. Retrieved 3 October 2018.
  38. Davis, Nicola (2 October 2018). "Nobel physics prize winners include first female laureate for 55 years – as it happened". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 26 February 2019. Retrieved 27 February 2019.
  39. Leyland Cecco (3 October 2018). "Female Nobel prize winner deemed not important enough for Wikipedia entry". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 3 October 2018. Retrieved 3 October 2018.
  40. Noopur, Raval (2014). "The Encyclopedia Must Fail! – Notes on Queering Wikipedia". Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology ("5"). doi:10.7264/N37W69GC. ISSN 2325-0496. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.
  41. Matthew, Vetter; Pettiway, Keon (20 November 2018). "Hacking Hetero/Normative Logics: Queer Feminist Media Praxis in Wikipedia". Technoculture. 7. Archived from the original on 14 October 2019. Retrieved 14 October 2019.
  42. Gardner, Sue (19 February 2011). "Nine Reasons Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia, In Their Own Words". suegardner.org (blog). Archived from the original on 18 July 2015.
  43. Yasseri, Taha; Liao, Han-Teng; Konieczny, Piotr; Morgan, Jonathan; Bayer, Tilman (31 July 2013). "Recent research — Napoleon, Michael Jackson and Srebrenica across cultures, 90% of Wikipedia better than Britannica, WikiSym preview". The Signpost. Wikipedia. Archived from the original on 17 June 2015.
  44. "The women of Wikipedia: Closing the site's giant gender gap". 24 January 2013. Archived from the original on 3 July 2015.
  45. "In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny". Christian Science Monitor. August 2013. Archived from the original on 4 July 2015.
  46. Jonathan T. Morgan; Siko Bouterse; Sarah Stierch; Heather Walls. "Tea & Sympathy: Crafting Positive New User Experiences on Wikipedia" (PDF). Wikimedia Foundation. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 November 2014. Retrieved 24 August 2014.
  47. Montellaro, Zach (18 November 2015). "How Does Political Wikipedia Stay Apolitical?: The seventh-most visited site is one of the first online listings for any elected official—but how does a site that stakes its reputation on neutrality walk that line". theatlantic.com. The Atlantic. Archived from the original on 21 August 2017. Retrieved 20 August 2017.
  48. Lam, Shyong K.; Uduwage, Anuradha; Dong, Zhenhua; Sen, Shilad; Musicant, David R.; Terveen, Loren; Reidl, John (October 2011). WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia's Gender Imbalance (PDF). WikiSym'11. ACM. Archived (PDF) from the original on 29 October 2013.
  49. Collier, Benjamin; Bear, Julia (2012). "Conflict, criticism, or confidence: an empirical examination of the gender gap in wikipedia contributions". Proceedings of the ACM 2012 Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work - CSCW '12. Seattle, Washington, USA: ACM Press: 383. doi:10.1145/2145204.2145265. ISBN 9781450310864. Archived from the original on 25 March 2019. Retrieved 1 April 2019.
  50. Ford, Heather; Wajcman, Judy (August 2017). "'Anyone can edit', not everyone does: Wikipedia's infrastructure and the gender gap" (PDF). Social Studies of Science. 47 (4): 511–527. doi:10.1177/0306312717692172. ISSN 0306-3127. PMID 28791929. Archived (PDF) from the original on 19 September 2018. Retrieved 8 May 2019.
  51. Konieczny, Piotr; Klein, Maximilian (December 2018). "Gender gap through time and space: A journey through Wikipedia biographies via the Wikidata Human Gender Indicator". New Media & Society. 20 (12): 4608–4633. doi:10.1177/1461444818779080. ISSN 1461-4448.
  52. Huang, Keira (11 August 2013). "Wikipedia fails to bridge gender gap". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 15 January 2016.
  53. "Wikistorming". FemTechNet. Fall 2013. Archived from the original on 17 July 2015.
  54. Mac Donald, Heather (9 February 2011). "Wikipedia Is Male-Dominated. That Doesn't Mean It's Sexist". Slate. Archived from the original on 7 January 2015. Retrieved 7 January 2015.
  55. Wikipedia 'completely failed' to fix gender imbalance Archived 29 December 2016 at the Wayback Machine, BBC interview with Jimmy Wales, 8 August 2014; starting at 45 seconds.
  56. Stoeffel (11 February 2014). "Closing Wikipedia's Gender Gap — Reluctantly". New York. Archived from the original on 2 September 2014. Retrieved 27 August 2014.
  57. "The Wikipedia wars: does it matter if our biggest source of knowledge is written by men?". newstatesman.com. Archived from the original on 2 June 2015.
  58. "Kate Middleton's wedding gown and Wikipedia's gender gap". 13 July 2012. Archived from the original on 3 December 2014. Retrieved 4 December 2014.
  59. "Tea & Sympathy: Crafting Positive New User Experiences on Wikipedia". washington.edu. Proc. CSCW ‘13, 23– 27February 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA. 2013. Archived from the original on 9 February 2015.
  60. "feminist wiki-storming – FemTechNet". Archived from the original on 1 April 2019. Retrieved 31 March 2019.
  61. Elizabeth Harrington (30 July 2014). "Government-Funded Study: Why Is Wikipedia Sexist?". Washington Free Beacon. Archived from the original on 1 August 2014.
  62. Paling, Emma, "How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women Archived 21 October 2015 at the Wayback Machine", The Atlantic, 21 October 2015 (subscription or advertising required)
  63. Redden, Molly (19 March 2016). "Women in science on Wikipedia: will we ever fill the information gap?". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 8 November 2017. Retrieved 16 August 2018.
  64. "Improving gender balance on Wikipedia". Royal Society of Chemistry. 21 August 2017. Archived from the original on 12 October 2017. Retrieved 16 August 2018.
  65. Gordon, Maggie (9 November 2017). "Wikipedia editing marathons add women's voices to online resource". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 16 August 2018. Retrieved 16 August 2018.
  66. Khan, Sadiq (12 June 2018). "Why we need to close Wikipedia's gender page gap". The Telegraph. Archived from the original on 16 August 2018. Retrieved 16 August 2018.
  67. "2016-2017 Fundraising Report - Wikimedia Foundation Governance Wiki". foundation.wikimedia.org. Archived from the original on 1 April 2019. Retrieved 31 March 2019.
  68. Kennedy, K. (2017). "Why women should be editing Wikipedia". Women's Studies Journal. 31 (1): 94–99. ISSN 0112-4099. OCLC 14929028.
  69. Edwards, Jennifer C. (2015). "Wiki Women: Bringing Women Into Wikipedia through Activism and Pedagogy". The History Teacher. 48 (3): 409–436. ISSN 0018-2745. JSTOR 24810523.

Further reading
  • Edwards, Jennifer C. "Wiki Women: Bringing Women Into Wikipedia through Activism and Pedagogy." The History Teacher, vol. 48, no. 3, 2015, pp. 409–436., online

Media coverage

Research and advice
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.