One of the sillier arguments regarding gender inequality (and most of them regarding the developed world are pretty silly in 2013) is that Wikipedia, with anonymous editors of suspect credibility, is somehow sexist because fewer people self-identified as female on an internal survey.
Now, it is obvious that there are fewer women writing it and reading it, just like it is obvious that Wikipedia is primarily populated by weird, militant goofballs. If you read their Science 2.0 entry, for example, it claims that Science 2.0 came into existence in 2008, as part of the Open Science movement, and that this site does not even exist and all people who have at various times tried to correct the errors have been scolded and overturned by the marketing person who monitors that page. There is a good reason why we make goat noises at people who use Wikipedia as a science source - it's too easy to hijack.
But sexist? No, they are not sexist. There is no way to be sexist, no one knows anyone's gender. The culture may be all assholes, and maybe women like to fight with assholes on the Internet less than men, but that is not sexism, as long as they are assholes to everyone. And they are. Pew Research also found that women are not only less likely to edit but also use the site less than men, just not as much less as Wikimedia found when it asked its own community.
IT academics have calibrated the data from the original finding regarding genders of Wikipedia editors with the Pew results and determined the situation is slightly better than thought. There is a reason they care; one of the authors of the PLoS One paper is on the advisory board of the Wikimedia Foundation and likely does not see the issue the way outsiders do.
Their new estimation is that the proportion of female US adult editors was 22.7% instead of the 17.8% originally stated, and that the total proportion of female editors was 16.1% versus the original 12.7%.
Credit and link: doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065782
So if Wikipedia is sexist, American Wikipedians are less sexist than Europeans. Take that, France!
Citation: Hill BM, Shaw A (2013) The Wikipedia Gender Gap Revisited: Characterizing Survey Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation. PLoS ONE 8(6): e65782.doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0065782
- PHYSICAL SCIENCES
- EARTH SCIENCES
- LIFE SCIENCES
- SOCIAL SCIENCES
Subscribe to the newsletter
Stay in touch with the scientific world!
Know Science And Want To Write?
- Greenpeace Says Its GMOs Are Better Than Science's GMOs, Still Hates Golden Rice
- Reduce Prostate Cancer Risk By Sleeping With Lots Of Women - But Not Men
- Homo Floresiensis: Hobbit Species Continues To Provoke Questions About Human Evolution
- Supersonic Laser-Propelled Aircraft Get A Step Closer
- Okay With Disgusting Images? You Vote This Way 95 Percent Of The Time
- Everyone Hates Daylight Savings Time - But It Might Improve Public Health
- This Mid-Term Election Can Have Evolutionary Consequences
- "You think the marker assisted selection suddenly being endorsed by Greenpeace is not genetic modification..."
- "food and energy are not major issues Are you for real???! As for the rest - well, population control..."
- "There are no Greenpeace GMOs. Go away with your bullcrap and take your GMOs with you. ..."
- "Talk about manned missions to Mars is foolishness until we've established a robot colony that has..."
- "Mars is basically a dead rock. Any life that can take hold there, good for it. Now the oceans of..."
- Genetically modified clean energy from bacteria
- Designer babies: You can screen for cystic fibrosis but intelligence is a way off
- Science as profane: What superstition of 1752 and 2014 share in common
- What’s so “natural” about “natural crop breeding”?
- Worried you have cancer? Take a Google pill!
- Mars bars for brain health? Not so fast