[WikiEN-l] Systemic bias wrt gender

Wed Nov 22 21:11:20 UTC 2006

On 11/22/06, Puppy <puppy at killerchihuahua.com> wrote:
> Stan Shebs wrote:
> > Puppy wrote:
> >
> >> [...] it seems people are focusing
> >> on cleaning rather than bias. I wrote about cleaning; I was attempting
> >> to illustrate underlying thought patterns and paradigms which led to the
> >> cleaning imbalance. It seems now the focus has moved to the cleaning,
> >> and that is my fault, I apologize for poor focus.
> >>
> >>
> > [[Systemic bias]] in the WP sense is more about article content and
> > quality rather than editor activities; for instance, we have more
> > extensive info on the presidents of the US than of Gabon, not as a
> > conscious decision but as side effect of being anglophone instead of
> > francophone, access to source material, etc. It seems tricky to identify
> > systemic bias that is gender-specific but not based on incorrect
> > stereotypes (puts me in mind of the old line about how there are only
> > two jobs that are single-gender - wet nurse and sperm donor :-) ), but
> > perhaps I'm unaware of articles that are obviously missing/stubly to others.
> >
> > Stan
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> >
> Article quality and content reflect the bias of their authors; whether
> internal  or external (access to sources, exposure to topics) that is
> the issue. Your example is of geographical/political bias. There is also
> religious bias (see my user page), and many other biases on Wikipedia.
> This thread is about gender bias, note the subject: wrt gender: as in,
> with regard to gender, ie; gender bias. It has expanded to note that
> there may be gender bias or at least gender imbalance within the editor
> pool on Wikipedia, and explored various possible reasons. Your email
> does not seem to be addressing any of that. I am not sure what you are
> saying with your email: are you saying that geopolitical bias is more
> rampant and deserves more attention than gender bias? Are you saying
> gender bias is hard to identify? Please clarify.
>
> -kc-

I would be curious; there's been a lot of hypothetical discussion on
these points, but I haven't seen much in the way of Wikipedia specific
gender bias issue claims made in the discussion.

I know it happens, in real life and in online discussions.  I can see
some areas where women might think the WP way of doing things was
biased.  But I would like to hear the specifics you are concerned
about.

Thanks...

-- 
-george william herbert
george.herbert at gmail.com