On 11/13/06, geni <geniice(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Not really. Particaly when you consider it is likely
that there are a
number of wikipedians who would probably editify with a gender outside
the normal two (Just wait untill some of our more ah sexualy illiberal
critics notice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Furry_Wikipedians)
I don't care how old you are. I don't care what sex you are. I don't
care what skin shade you are. I don't care what sexual orientation you
are. I don't care about your marital status.
I will care about the langue you speak and sometimes which country you
are in when dealing with copyright issues.
You can say that all you want (and I feel the same), but if you are
denying that gender is a factor in wikipedia, you're deluding
yourself.
Wikipedia is
clearly a place where men feels more comfortable than
women and that is something that is a BAD thing.
Why?
Are you asking why wikipedia is a place where men are more
comfortable, if men infact are more comfortable or why it's a bad
thing? Sometimes you really need to reply with more than one word, it
gets hard to understand.
If you are asking why it's a bad thing, here is a few suggestions:
because they comprise more than half of the worlds population, because
we need as many diverse views as possible, because having an
enviroment where a huge group of people are severly underrepresantated
can be damaging to the encyclopedia, ... You can easily make up ten
more reasons for yourself, so take your pick.
You're so naive if you think this is irrelevant.
And a bunch of
guys
trying to ignore the issue is just making it worse.
Why?
Because it's stupid, and stupidity is bad. I don't understand why you
are so opposed to the idea that we should work towards a solid
representation of both genders on wikipedia. Since when is gender
equality a bad thing?
Do you deny that we have a problem with this? Or did the 1:39 ratio
not convince you?
--Oskar