Not enough Wikipedia contributors are women and there are too many misogynist contributors, says NY Times

2011-02-01T04:15:07+00:00

A Wikipedia for women would not be a fairly static collection of facts, but a flickering panoply of constantly changing images, never the same for more than a moment.

No, that would be 4chan.

mizzp · 2011-02-01T00:53:38+00:00

Where does it say that there are too many misogynistic contributors?

This is all I can find:

Adopting openness means being “open to very difficult, high-conflict people, even misogynists,”

That just says that they are open to anyone who wants to contribute. It doesn't say that there even are misogynistic contributors

FreddyDeus · 2011-02-01T03:23:50+00:00

A topic generally restricted to teenage girls, like friendship bracelets, can seem short at four paragraphs when compared with lengthy articles on something boys might favor, like, toy soldiers or baseball cards,

FUCKING FRIENDSHIP BRACELETS!?

Toy soldiers have been manufactured for hundreds of years by hundreds of companies and fall well within the field of antique collecting as well as other fields.

Similarly with Baseball cards. What the fuck more is there to say about friendship bracelets that should take more than 4 paragraphs?

Let's look up Barbie and see if there are only 4 paragraphs for a toy that's been made for decades and is also highly collectible as well as being a part of the fabric of western culture for some time...

...Nope... Barbie gets at least 30 paragraphs. That's a girls' thing, right?

enkidusfriend · 2011-02-01T16:37:41+00:00

Step 1. Find any situation where % of men > % of women.

Step 2. Blame on misogyny.

Step 3. Lather, rinse, and repeat.

That said, I think more female contributors to Wikipedia would be an excellent thing. There are going to be topics and positions that women will be able to contribute to in ways men cannot. The "problem" here is that Wikipedia is not as good as it could be if it had more female contributors. There is no need for any recriminations directed against men.

anonymouslemming · 2011-02-01T08:26:52+00:00

Why is this even getting any coverage? It's a pretty easy problem to solve. If women want more of their content on wikipedia, they just have to start typing.

Bobsutan · 2011-02-07T13:45:37+00:00

That's the exact point The Atlantic made when they covered this story. The big whopping question feminists cannot or will not answer is:

Why should anyone care?

Like many other aspects of society women have equal opportunity, in this case to create and edit articles. We must not fault Wikipedia because women won't take the initiative. It's much the same with regards to male dominated careers. Instead of pumping millions into special incentives programs specially made to benefit only women, we should actually let the chips fall where they may. Success comes with risk, and quite frankly women don't take the same risks men do. You need not look any further than the rates of war dead, homeless, and on the job deaths. Men take the risks and subsequently men make up the bulk of life's successes AND failures with 98% of the war dead, a little over 75% of the US's homeless, and 96% of those killed on the job. On the other end of the spectrum they make up the bulk of the CEOs, politicians, and so on.

Bottom line, feminism was supposed to be about equal opportunity, NOT equal result.

Title	Not enough Wikipedia contributors are women and there are too many misogynist contributors, says NY Times
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	17
Comments	15
Date	February 1, 2011 12:40 AM UTC (15 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/fcqro/not_enough_wikipedia_contributors_are_women_and/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/not-enough-wikipedia-contributors-are-women-and.1043690 https://theredarchive.com/post/1043690

Comments