Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia/Archive 2

Women in IT and women editors on Wikipedia
This passage, currently the second paragraph under the "Research findings" header, compares the percentage of women in IT work positions to the percentage of volunteer editors here at Wikipedia:"In comparison, according to Lydia Fishman of Fast Company, the national averages for female-to-male ratios in the IT industry are as follows: 'The U.S. average is only 29% (female to male percentage in IT) according to the RJMetrics survey of the top 50 cities in tech as determined through Meetup data. That’s a bit higher than the 26% of women in computer or mathematical occupations that the Bureau of Labor Statistics reported for 2013.'[5]"The passage a little further down, under the heading "Causes" is more relevant:"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'.[17][18] Wikipedia research fellow Sarah Stierch acknowledged that it is 'fairly common' for Wikipedia contributors to remain gender-anonymous.[19]"It seems to me that the latter comparison is more relevant, and should replace the first quoted paragraph. Eddymason (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * PS: The source only says "Lydia Fishman, FastCompany, July 2014 issue" without any title. There doesn't seem to be a Lydia Fishman, but there is a Lydia Dishman, but without a title it's hard to know what the contributor who left that there was referring to. Regardless, the comparison of volunteer participation at a website with real life occupation doesn't seem relevant. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Eddymason (talk) 04:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that the relevance of the first paragraph is not clear. I'm going to go ahead and remove it—but feel free to re-add the Time information if there's a good place for it. —Granger (talk · contribs) 12:19, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the future please do not feel free to delete referenced information which is immediately relevant to the topic. As you may know, activity of wikiedians is in general lower than it used to be (may be here is not the case), so your deletion may go unnoticed at all. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * As to the issue itself: the relevance was pretty much clear, but the presence of this section is WP:SYNTH: in order to include this info we have to have a source that makes this comparison with wikipedia. Therefore I support the removal. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:25, 5 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Both comparisons are relevant if they (i.e. the comparisons, not just the figures) can be sourced reliably. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:03, 9 March 2015 (UTC).


 * Comparisons of Finding1 and Finding2 may be relevant only if a reasonable care is taken that Finding1 and Finding2 were performed under comparable methodologies. This is Statistics 101. In the context of wikipedia this means at least that Finding1 and Finding2 are discussed in the same source. Otherwise even simply putting Finding1 and Finding2 side by side without any comment in a wikipedia article is a classical example of WP:SYNTH. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Idea lab proposal for recruiting women editors
I'm not sure this is the right place for this information, please forgive me if I've broken a guideline, consensus, community standards, civility or the other things that are not good...

My idea for recruiting more women editors on Wikipedia
 *  Bfpage &#124;leave a message 10:51, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Section "Category-Gate and Feminist Digital Humanities"
The recently added section "Category-Gate" is a standalone essay thrown in without connection to the rest of the article. As a result it significantly duplicates the already existing content. If it is a result of a feminist edit-athon, I applaud the effort, but at the same time I suggest to dismantle the section and seamlessly integrate it into existing article, with meaningful subsectioning. (The added text may give rise to a couple more sections). In addition the "angry feminist" voice must be toned down. The magical 10% is not a result of male conspiracy. Yes there are more males and yes, it results in a bias. But not because of malevolence one has to combat. Welcome, girls, join the ranks, write article about your role models, and be happy looking fem-wikipedia grow, without wrestling with men. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, "category gate" is an idiotism of sensationalist journalism, and it does not even start to adequately describe the issues of gender bias. (By the way, you did not describe the term) the category "female writers" was created with well-meaning purpose to single out, stress the existence of female writers, not to somehow put them down. The whole interpretation was ridiculous: listing a person as "female writer" does not mean she is not a "real" writer. Categories are created not becase of political correctness, but because people want to know something. In this case, nobody really cares that a writer is male. Hence there was no category. But feminists wanted to know that a writer is a female. Hence the category. And now suddenly wikipedia is guilty of discrimination by male chauvinst pigs who created a ghetto category for women. This fight looks to me not much better than "reverse-discrimination" of males because there are no diaper tables in men's restrooms. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:50, 18 April 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree that this section is not neutral, and contained unsourced claims such as "Because not enough women are on Wikipedia, women’s entries are either weakened or deemed unworthy by the ever-dominant male presence". Also I feel that the essay relies too much on the opinions of random named people who may not be notable. If they are notable, then I would like to see their Wiki pages linked to, otherwise their opinions shouldn't be used as evidence. My solution, because I would not feel comfortable editing the piece myself, would be to remove the section until it is rewritten to comply with Wikipedia standards. I'd rather seek some consensus on that before doing something like that, though. --Resip27 (talk) 21:44, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

Discussion about sexual harassment policy
Editors interested in this topic may also be interested in a discussion about whether Wikipedia should have a sexual harassment policy, located here. Input is welcome. CorporateM (Talk) 22:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Gender anonymity - texts need rewriting
Have you wondered how many of our users actually allow their gender to be publicly known? I think this question should be analyzed and answered before how many of us are male or female, and the article should give more emphasis to that question. It doesn't state anywhere that the surveys refer only to people who spontaneously decide to identify as male or female. - - Alumnum (talk) 04:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, Some people also mis-gender themselves on purpose. AFAIU, females do it more often than males (judging from their claim that they do it to avoid bias). "Passive" surveys cannot help you here, only polls. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:47, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that the lede of a wikipedia article is a summary of the article. Therefore any new information must be added in the article body and then summarized in the lede, if necessary. (BTW when doing this you usually don't need to put footnotes into the lede; the latter makes it look ugly.) Doing otherwise may lead to self-controversies. This is what happened with your recent edit: your lede addition " ranging from 6% to 22.7%" does not match with "approximately 8.5 and 16 percent" in the article text. Please harmonize. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * P.S. I also rephrased your edit, because the phrase "a small minority of Wikipedia editors are female, which contributes to the systemic bias in Wikipedia" implies that females are producing the bias :-) See "garden path sentence" Staszek Lem (talk) 18:06, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed your numbers from lede altogether, since they are misleading: please read about 22.7% in the article body. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * To summarize was exactly what I did in my lede edition. The article presented various percentages from different surveys but it didn't indicated a whole range - that's what my edit added. Yes, I agree that many footnotes damage the text aesthetics, but I think that, in this case, these footnotes are needed to fully support the said statement. But perhaps it would be really better to remove them, as they are already in the article body.


 * As to the second issue, you may note that the "8.6 - 16%" refers to two or three specific surveys, while the "6 - 22.7%", as I said before, is a greater approach concerning all mentioned surveys, what in my opinion fits good as a summary. - - Alumnum (talk) 18:22, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
 * There is the problem with showing "the whole range" - if you are not careful, you will be comparing apples and oranges, and the "whole range" becomes meaningless. In particular, the number 22.7% I mentioned is for adult US females, while the article implies the whole wikipedia. I have no idea without reading sources what other surveys did. Another problem is that surveys were carried out at different times. Therefore the best idea is to remove any numbers from lede altogether, otherwise lots of exlanation are necessary. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Just think
Has anyone considered that there are few women in Wikipedia, because there is no demand? There is no interest in the audience. From what I know, wikipedia allows a person, an educated parrot, edit its contents. Why the obsession with gender? 189.70.135.108 (talk) 20:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Women in disguise
Has anyone considered that many females can pretend to be male? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stankot (talk • contribs) 08:35, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

What a load of...
Especially those nine reasons given by Sue Gardner. So, nobody considered the obvious, real reason of the gender disparity? Has political correctness really taken such a hold over free speech that we can't even face, or formulate the truth anymore? That women in general just don't care. They'll use the wiki but just won't contribute. We all know where women are found on the internet, let's not fool ourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.174.108.198 (talk) 16:14, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Note: This comment is clearly trolling, especially the last sentence, but I'm not going to edit war over it. The editor claimed on my talk page that "[t]he point [he's] making is totally absent in the article," yet explicitly mentions it. I encourage anyone to remove this and the preceding section under TPO's allowance for removing disruptive and off-topic discussions.  Rebb  ing  18:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You have a right to consider that my style is too harsh and direct, but in no way shape or form is it trolling. Besides, having 3 lines out of an entire article hardly makes it unbiased, which was my point in the first place. 88.174.108.198 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Please keep in mind that wikipedia talk pages are not a soapbox. If you have specific suggestions how to improve article, you are welcome. Please keep in mind that article improvements must be based on information published in reputable sources. Please provide ones which argue that women dont edit wikipedia because they dont care. Simply venting your frustration is useless.  Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I presume the comment about trolling comes from the combination of belligerence and lack of meaningful/actionable content. Steering away from the "trolling" label, I'll just say the problem is that you're using the talk page to complain about the subject of the article by way of your own opinion. The only things that go in the article are what appear in reliable sources. Here are ways to effect change using the talk page: dispute sources used that you identify as unreliable (according to these criteria), argue that the sources cited are reliable but not accurately represented, or cite other reliable sources to back up a different, even contrary perspective. In short, it's not "directness", it's that this page isn't about gender bias on Wikipedia; it's a civil collaborative space to talk about how to improve the article according to the subject's coverage in reliable sources. These are all ideals, to be sure, and it's not always so clean cut, but that's why your comments were removed. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:11, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I assumed trolling based on the hostility, the complaint about "political correctness," and what I took—incorrectly—to be a wink-and-nod insinuation that women on the Internet are found in porn ("We all know where women are found on the internet, let's not fool ourselves."), not doing serious things like writing encyclopedias. The editor discussed it further on my talk page, and I can see my assumption about his intent was mistaken. I apologize, and I wish him the best. Rebb  ing  01:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Maybe "gender bias" is not the best term
This is a complex subject and many people have strong opinions. Maybe it would help if we thought more about the terms that are being used.

If there is gender "bias", that should mean that the source is actively antagonistic to women. If people of one gender voluntarily do not participate as much in an activity, then there is less representation of that gender in the activity than in the broad population. For example, if there are fewer men teaching kindergarten than women teaching kindergarten, this is not "bias" against men but voluntary less representation by men.

As we discuss "gender bias" on Wikipedia, I am upset if people demean women on Wikipedia. That is wrong on several levels. At the simplest level, it is not civil and kind. But that strikes be as quite different than the statement that fewer women voluntarily choose to edit on Wikipedia.

I could not resist a chuckle when I read that the first listed reason that fewer women edit here is that the interface is difficult, "A lack of user-friendliness in the editing interface." There are probably men out there who say women as a class are less capable of working in STEM, but it almost seems like this quotation is saying that editing Wikipedia is harder for women than for men. I strongly doubt that this is what Sue Gardner would say she meant. (This guy strongly agrees that the user interface is difficult. But it is equally difficult for all, regardless of gender.)

Another sub-topic that comes up in the discussion of gender-bias is that there are fewer articles about women than men. Not sure what the statistics are on this, but it would be fascinating to see a breakdown by century. For example, in the 18th century there were fewer women than men who were rabbis, generals, composers, poets, inventors; society having been what it was, it is inevitable that there will be many more articles about men than women from the past. I would expect a higher proportion of articles about women for recent decades. The sub-topic of proportion of articles about women and men is qualitatively different than the discussion about the factors that discourage women from editing in larger numbers. And it is the easiest to change.

I trust that this tiny essay will help us all think more clearly about what can be improved in and around Wikipedia. If we can sort out the issues a bit more clearly, it should help us all improve this messy process and resource called "Wikipedia". I am trying to be not merely civil, but constructive and friendly. I hope that those who disagree with me, even if they disagree vehemently, will understand my efforts as having been made in an irenic spirit. Pete unseth (talk) 19:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * What about Gender disparity in Wikipedia? Some do use this term. I agree the term "bias" bears many negative connotations: prejudice, unfairness, etc. (Of course some go even further and speak of Sexism in Wikipedia...:-( ] AFAIU, "disparity" is a rather neutral term about pronounced inequality. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * On the other hand, it looks like "gender bias" is an established term for what's going on in various areas, regardless "ill will". Therefore we must find out which term is most common in reliable sources and stick to it (WP:COMMONNAME). Staszek Lem (talk) 00:07, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * re "user-friendliness" et al. - these are the actual complaints provided by actual women and summarized by Sue, without any actual research/ statistics. I will edit the piece accordingly, to decrease the gist of authority. Staszek Lem (talk) 23:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)


 * Rather than go through it again, I'll just point to Talk:Gender_bias_on_Wikipedia/Archive_1, though I'm happy to clarify. Took me a bit to find that, since someone created an untitled discussion section including the cluebot code, so cluebot archived the archiving code, then archived the archive... :) Fixed now. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * A good catch, but it was a "no consensus" case. Let's see if new arguments crop up. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Fair enough. I'll just speak for myself that my opinion hasn't changed. :) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 01:04, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

peer reviewed

 * Klein, Max, and Piotr Konieczn. "Wikipedia in the World of Global Gender Inequality Indices." Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Open Collaboration - OpenSym '15 (2015): n. pag. Web. &lt;http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2789849&amp;preflayout=flat&gt;. While Wikipedia's editor gender gap is important but difficult to measure, its biographical gender gap can more readily be measured. We correlate a Wikipedia-derived gender inequality indicator (WIGI), with four widespread gender inequality indices in use today (GDI, GEI, GGGI, and SIGI). Analysing their methodologies and correlations to Wikipedia, we find evidence that Wikipedia's bias in biographical coverage is related to the gender bias in positions of social power.


 * Kalla, Joshua L., and Peter M. Aronow. "Editorial Bias in Crowd-Sourced Political Information." PLOS ONE PLoS ONE 10.9 (2015): n. pag. Web. &lt;http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/ps/downloadDocument.do?actionCmd=DO_DOWNLOAD_DOCUMENT&amp;inPS=true&amp;prodId=AONE&amp;userGroupName=sfpl_main&amp;tabID=&amp;documentTitle=Editorial%2BBias%2Bin%2BCrowd-Source&amp;originalLanguage=&amp;workId=8EGZ_pone.0136327-p.pdf%7C&amp;docId=GALE%7CA427517563&amp;callistoContentSet=PER&amp;downloadFormat=PDF&amp;contentSet=&gt;. In this paper, we examine what kinds of biases exist in crowd-sourced information on Wikipedia. Because any user can also be an editor, no one person with any particular ideological or partisan motivation should be able to control Wikipedia. Yet scholars have recognized the tension that comes from distributed, crowd-sourced platforms like Wikipedia. On the one hand, crowd-sourced information platforms create opportunities for citizens to challenge media-driven narratives. On the other, these platforms may be captured by the self-interested who have the greatest motivation to shape them for their own benefit.


 * Massa, Paolo, and Zelenkauskaite, Asta. "Gender Gap In Wikipedia Editing: A Cross-Language Comparison". In "Global Wikipedia: International and Cross-Cultural Issues in Online Collaboration" edited by Pnina Fichman and Noriko Hara, 2014. See  and < https://books.google.it/books?id=L0HcDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA85&lpg=PA85&dq=%22Gender+Gap+In+Wikipedia+Editing:+%22&source=bl&ots=ZabDTMxXdI&sig=3dhB0RRCgu1qzGw3U3nnUG306U8&hl=it&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjmvNHcsvLVAhVLiRoKHY77A9AQ6AEINTAC#v=onepage&q=%22Gender%20Gap%20In%20Wikipedia%20Editing%3A%20%22&f=false > This study compared gender across 289 language editions of Wikipedia. First, we analyzed the extent to which expressing gender is a diffused practice in various Wikipedias. We conclude that the differences in the amount of users expressing their gender can be explained by the differences in the interfaces, both the visibility of gender and the incentive to express it, especially during the process of the new user-profile creation.The second research question focused on the cross-Wikipedia evaluation of the gender gap. Overall results show that there is not a single sociotechnical system in which women constitute the majority, thus confirming that the gender gap is not just present in the English Wikipedia but it is diffused across all language editions of Wikipedia. However, there are notable differences: in some Wikipedias (Slovenian, Estonian, Lithuanian) the percentage of women is close to 40 percent, in others (Bengali, Hindi) it is around 4 percent, while on the English Wikipedia, the chosen baseline given its international nature reaches 17 percent. Notably, languages whose editions of Wikipedia have larger shares of women tend to be spoken in countries with a larger participation of women in science. In conclusion, we observe that, even if Wikipedia is an online system, it reflects the real-world societies that inhabit the different language versions of it, and across languages and countries there are differences in women participation in public life. In particular, given that the context of Wikipedia is about creating knowledge, the best explanatory factor is the participation of women in knowledge-creation activities: the gender gap in different language editions of Wikipedia reflects the gender gap in science across the different countries of the real world. Future research should conduct interviews with Wikipedians to identify benefits and drawbacks of visible gender settings as well as possible techniques that would encourage more diverse populations of these sociotechnical systems. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.77.82.234 (talk) 12:34, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

mass media

 * Many hands make Wikipedia work. (2015, December 10). Sydney Morning Herald [Sydney, Australia], p. 20. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA436910759&sid=summon&v=2.1&u=sfpl_main&it=r&p=STND&sw=w&asid=ec97e622b712616c8a2c1ff0dc58b220 We all use Wikipedia. It's hard to avoid. On just about any Google search, Wiki tops the list. Because it's also astoundingly comprehensive, intelligible and reliable, it has become the ubiquitous go-to start point. Yet almost the first research rule our kids learn is Wiki-denial. Read it if you must but, never, honey, never ever admit to it. ... So yes, Wikipedia is flawed. Above all, it needs more female input. But the obvious response, for you-and-me users who encounter something stupid or biased or just plain wrong, is to hop in there and fix it. I'll see you there, yes? Oh, and honey? Cite away!


 * Wikipedia: A bias against women? (2014, Apr 13). The National Retrieved from http://ezproxy.sfpl.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1515588882?accountid=35117 Prof Bruckner's hope is that having systemic data on the extent and reasons behind bias could mobilise resources to deal with the issue. It might help, she suggests, if universities encouraged staff to become Wikipedia contributors, ensuring important academic work does not get ignored. They could, for example, expand the programmes some of them already run for academics on writing newspaper editorial columns - another area where female writers tend to be heavily outnumbered - to cover Wikipedia contributions. "That is not something we usually do. We're scientists, we're not in the business of marketing our research. We have no training to do this," said Prof Bruckner. She admits she has never contributed to Wikipedia herself. The apparent bias could also be partly redressed by focusing on general initiatives to improve Wikipedia's quality. For Prof Bruckner, the Wikipedia project may also offer pointers about how the value of academic work in general is assessed. "There is the gender issue, but also how people think about scholarship and what's reputable scholarship or not," she said.

Forthcoming

 * Julia Adams, Hannah Brückner, "Wikipedia and the Democratization of Academic Knowledge", National Science Foundation.

October–December

 * Viola Bernacchi, "Gender imbalance and Wikipedia", MSc thesis, Politecnico Milano (also here).
 * Anna Quinlan, "Wikipedia Has a Misogyny Problem", Verily, 28 October 2015.
 * Gamaliel, "Women and Wikipedia: the world is watching", Wikipedia Signpost, 21 October 2015 (discussion).
 * Emma Paling, "Wikipedia's Hostility to Women", The Atlantic, 21 October 2015.
 * Caroline Massie, "Takeaways from the Guggenheim’s Wikipedia Edit-a-thon on Women in Architecture", Architect Magazine, 16 October 2015.
 * Audrey O'Donnell, "Q&A: SU professor to attend Wikipedia edit-a-thon for women in architecture", The Daily Orange, 14 October 2015.

September–July

 * J. F. Sargent, Abigail Brady, "Wikipedia Hates Women: 4 Dark Sides of The Site We All Use", Cracked, 15 August 2015.
 * Caitlin Grimes, "WVU hiring Wikipedian to bridge Wikipedia 'gender gap'", Campus Reform, 21 July 2015.
 * Carl Straumsheim, "University hopes 'Wikipedian in residence' will tackle gender gap", Times Higher Education, 20 July 2015.

June–April

 * Anupama Mili, "'Few Women in Wiki Editing'", The New Indian Express, 26 June 2015.
 * Emma Reynolds, "Australians fill in the gaps on Wikipedia", news.com.au, 11 June 2015.
 * Cyndi Moritz, "Project Aims to Raise Profile of Women Architects on Wikipedia", Syracuse University, 1 June 2015.
 * Jenny Kleeman, "The Wikipedia wars: does it matter if our biggest source of knowledge is written by men?", New Statesman, 26 May 2015.
 * Bryce Peake, "WP:THREATENING2MEN: Misogynist Infopolitics and the Hegemony of the Asshole Consensus on English Wikipedia", Ada: A Journal of Gender, New Media, and Technology, April 2015 (published by the Wikipedia Signpost, 19 August 2015).
 * Tilman Bayer, "How many women edit Wikipedia?", Wikimedia Foundation, 30 April 2015.
 * Claudia Wagner, David Garcia, Mohsen Jadidi, Markus Strohmaier, "It's a Man's Wikipedia? Assessing Gender Inequality in an Online Encyclopedia", AAAI Publications, Ninth International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media, 21 April 2015.
 * Sara Boboltz, "Editors Are Trying To Fix Wikipedia's Gender And Racial Bias Problem", The Huffington Post, 15 April 2015.

March–January

 * Tyler Hellard, "Wiki gap", This Magazine, 19 March 2015.
 * Mina Kim, "Wikipedia's Gender and Race Gaps", KQED Radio, 13 March 2015.
 * Hannah Ghorashi, "Art+Feminism’s 2015 Wikipedia Edit-a-thon Adds 334 Articles on Female Artists", Art News, 10 March 2015.
 * Amanda Marcotte, "On Wikipedia, Gamergate Refuses to Die", Slate, 6 March 2015.
 * Lauren C. Williams, "The ‘Five Horsemen’ Of Wikipedia Paid The Price For Getting Between Trolls And Their Victims", Think Progress, 6 March 2015.
 * Issie Lapowsky, "Meet the Editors Fighting Racism and Sexism on Wikipedia", Wired, 5 March 2015.
 * John Paul Titlow, "Think Wikipedia Is Sexist? They Want To Pay You To Help Change That", Fast Company, 5 March 2015.
 * Glynis Board, "Wiki Gender Gap to Be Discussed in Morgantown", West Virginia Public Broadcasting, 3 March 2015.
 * Dawn Eyestone, "Wikipedia, Controversy, and the Myth of Neutrality", PopMatters, 23 February 2015.
 * Victoria McNally, "Art+Feminism Is Hosting Its Second Ever Wikipedia Edit-a-thon To Promote Gender Equality", The Mary Sue, 18 February 2015.
 * Kendra Hanna, "Feminists aim to fix the Wikipedia gender gap", The Daily of the University of Washington, 16 February 2015.
 * Jason Wilson, "Are misogynists running Wikipedia?", Overland, 11 February 2015.
 * Eduardo Graells-Garrido, Mounia Lalmas, Filippo Menczer, "First Women, Second Sex: Gender Bias in Wikipedia", arxiv, 9 February 2015.
 * James Dean, "Wikipedia editors are accused of sexism", The Times, 5 February 2015.
 * David Auerbach, "The Wikipedia Ouroboros", Slate, 5 February 2015.
 * John Paul Titlow, "More Like Dude-ipedia: Study Shows Wikipedia's Sexist Bias", Fast Company, 2 February 2015.
 * "Computational Linguistics Reveals How Wikipedia Articles Are Biased Against Women", MIT Technology Review, 2 February 2015 (re: ).
 * Michael Mandiberg, "The Affective Labor of Wikipedia: GamerGate, Harassment, and Peer Production", Social Text, 1 February 2015.
 * Andy Cush, "The Gamergate Decision Shows Exactly What's Broken About Wikipedia", Gawker, 30 January 2015.
 * Richard Adhikari, "Gamergate Bleeds Into Wikipedia", Tech News World, 30 January 2015.
 * Caitlin Dewey, "Gamergate, Wikipedia and the limits of 'human knowledge'", The Washington Post, 29 January 2015.
 * Sravanth Verma, "Gamergate sucks in Wikipedia with ban controversy", Digital Journal, 29 January 2015.
 * Adi Robertson, "Wikipedia denies 'purging' feminist editors over Gamergate debate", The Verge, 28 January 2015.
 * Go Phightins! and Harry Mitchell, "Thirteen editors sanctioned in mammoth GamerGate arbitration case", The Signpost (Wikipedia), 28 January 2015.
 * Masem and Protonk, "Evaluating the Arbitration Committee's handling of GamerGate", The Signpost (Wikipedia), 28 January 2015.
 * Carolyn Cox, "Wikipedia Organizations Address Gamergate Editor Controversy: Women Are 'Invaluable Contributors'", The Mary Sue, 28 January 2015.
 * Claudia Wagner, David Garcia, Mohsen Jadidi, Markus Strohmaier, "It's a Man's Wikipedia? Assessing Gender Inequality in an Online Encyclopedia", arXiv, 26 January 2015.
 * Philippe Beaudette, "Civility, Wikipedia, and the conversation on Gamergate", Wikimedia Foundation, 27 January 2015.
 * Alanna Bennett, "Wikipedia Has Banned Five Feminist Editors From Gamergate Articles & More", ''The Mary Sue, 24 January 2015.
 * Andy Cush, "Wikipedia Purged a Group of Feminist Editors Because of Gamergate", Gawker, 23 January 2015.
 * Nathaniel Mott, "Wikipedia tacitly endorses GamerGate by blocking its opponents from editing gender-related articles", PandoDaily, 23 January 2015.
 * Alex Hern, "Wikipedia votes to ban some editors from gender-related articles", The Guardian, 23 January 2015.
 * Dawn Leonard Tripp, "How to Edit Wikipedia: Lessons from a Female Contributor", Anita Borg Institute, 13 January 2015.
 * Nathaniel Tkacz, Wikipedia and the Politics of Openness, University of Chicago Press, 2015.

Discussion
I've added a "do not archive until" template to this section since it looks like it's still useful to improve the article. That template can be removed by anyone if I'm wrong, of course. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 13:15, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Rename
Gender bias carries the implication that Wikipedia is hostile towards women. Given the efforts being made, it seems doubtful that this is the case. Perhaps something along the lines of Gender disparity of Wikipedia editors. TheDracologist (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 22 October 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Not Moved Mike Cline (talk) 09:56, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Gender bias on Wikipedia → Gender imbalance of Wikipedia editorship – Gender bias implies hostile intent towards a gender. I believe Gender imbalance of Wikipedia editorship would be more reflective of the page's subject matter. TheDracologist (talk) 23:07, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose - This has been proposed a few times before. I don't feel like I have cause to change my opinion from the last time we had a formally proposed move here: Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia/Archive 1. Speaking to the wording of this proposal in particular, while many have argued that Wikipedia is hostile towards women, the term "bias" does not itself imply hostility. &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 00:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: this article is about gender bias, imbalance is only one element of a much larger systematic bias. The imbalance is a result of the bias. Indeed renaming this article to imbalance over bias is symptomatic of the gender bias which exists on Wikipedia through negation and marginalisation of critism. Ebonelm (talk) 11:56, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Current name describes what the article is actually about; proposed name does not MrStoofer (talk) 11:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Support" FOR different reasons. Gender bias is apparent in the editor base but this is no where near as important (IMO) as the bias on Wikipedia. Only 16% of biographies are about women. Some argue that these are related but this is not true. The bias of history was against wown before the WWW was invented. The title needs to be changed to allow another article about the work being done by the "Women in Red" project. Victuallers (talk) 10:44, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose Fred (talk) 14:42, 29 October 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Coverage on Today
This topic was covered on the Today programme on Radio Four during the week beginning December 5 2016 and could be updated with reference here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.140.1.129 (talk) 10:57, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

WP gender guidelines?
A question, slightly extraneous to the article, but certainly relevant: are there any guidelines about gender considerations & proper representation on [other] Wikipedia articles? e.g., present topics in a way that represents men and women equally (when men and women are equal components of the group/population in question). The question arises in connection with Haredi Judaism, where a few weeks ago I encountered a set of photographs exclusively of men. In discussions of the issue, another editor has claimed that "gender ... considerations do not have any basis in Wikipedia policy and guidelines", and that it's okay to have mostly men in the photographs because "men are the public face of Haredi Judaism". I'd imagine that there are gender considerations in Wikipedia policy; the closest we get that I'm aware of is MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, "seek to depict a variety of ages, genders, and ethnicities". Any suggestions for other places to look, especially re gender? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 03:36, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
 * While not a bad question, as this is the article on the subject rather than a guideline, this should really go elsewhere (VPP/VPM/MOS/NPOV/whatnot). (fwiw it's not a bad question to ask) &mdash;  Rhododendrites talk  \\ 04:25, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Domestic violence in Russia
Can someone please update this article Domestic violence in Russia? I think the 2017 law passed but I'm not sure. Thanks.173.59.126.44 (talk) 17:34, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I got it sorted.173.59.126.44 (talk) 17:05, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

May be of interest?
Women at University Victuallers (talk) 10:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Gendered bias in favor of women
It's interesting to note that this article solely mentions the evidence that supports that Wikipedia's gender bias is exclusively in favor of men, and "against women". Clearly this has a lot of research behind it and I won't sit here and argue against the evidence presented in the article; however, the fact that this article presents only the evidence in favor of the perceived anti-female bias is definitely worth noting, in my opinion, as an example of those instances in which Wikipedia's gendered bias is in favor of women and "anti-male".

I am not sure whether academic research has been made about this, but off of the top of my head I can cite several articles in which the female voice and issues are given far more weight and importance than the male voice and issues. This, perhaps anecdotally, seems to be especially common in health-related and society-related topics in which women-centered feminist research is often the only research cited.

For example, compare the length and quality of the articles Femicide and Androcide. Or of the article Women's health and Men's health. And interestingly, the article Gender disparities in health addresses solely those disparities faced by women, and barely dedicates a measly paragraph to casually making note of the health disparities faced by men (despite the fact that, across most countries, age groups, and populations, men consistently fare worse in most health outcomes). And, of course, this article itself is an example of it.

Gender bias in Wikipedia is furthered by and affects both men and women. Though the available research seems to indicate that it disproportionately affects women in the negative (although, it is important to note that the research itself may be biased), this article fails to mention the sizeable pockets of Wikipedia in which the gender bias affects men negatively.

I would really appreciate some input on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:281:C200:D17F:38BD:C417:A365:37BF (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)


 * If you have reliable sources for the idea that Wikipedia is biased against men, we can consider mentioning it in the article. —Granger (talk · contribs) 10:41, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

A cursory review of the available online sources indicates that virtually all of the literature on gender bias on Wikipedia focuses exclusively on that which excludes women and female voices. I would be tempted to say that this is an example of bias in the research itself, given that the majority of people who conduct research on issues such as "gender bias" (sociologists, gender issues researchers, etc...) in society or online do so explicitly or implicitly from a feminist perspective. This either purposefully or otherwise appears to lead to the exclusion of evidence in support of the idea that, at least in certain areas, men and male voices can be excluded in favor of women's. Perhaps because this "anti-male" bias is not regarded as "systemic" it is ignored by these researchers, but at least some mention of it should be made somewhere in the article.

That is the reason why I acknowledged the anecdotal evidence, and gave you examples of articles in which there is plenty of evidence of the female voice and issues being given a disproportionate amount of time, effort, and quality, and mentioned that there is likely a great bias in the "reliable sources" themselves. The article Gender disparities in health and the articles Men's health and Women's health are a particularly good example of this. You can probably find more examples, especially in healthcare-, feminist-, men's rights-, and sociology-related topics. Looking at who edited and contributed to these articles, I would venture to say that this disparity is caused largely by the great zeal and passion that feminists and women's activists have for addressing women's issues (which inspires many editors to contribute that viewpoint in articles) vis-a-vis the general apathy and disinterest that men's issues (especially when seen from a non-feminist or male-centered perspective) garner, both in general society and in academia.

I realize that these examples I am giving you would likely constitute "original research" and may not constitute "systemic bias" but, if gender bias on Wikipedia is something that we are really trying to address, I believe all voices should be heard and all issues addressed. All that being said, I simply do not have the free time, skills, nor resources available to look further into this topic, and only mention it to bring it to the attention of those Wikipedia editors that do, and are equitably disposed in addressing gender bias when it exists against both men and women.

Need a more careful nuance when using the word "bias"
The word "bias" seems to be used in two different ways in this article. Some will conflate the two, but I think they need to be differentiated.

There are indicators that there are more men than women that edit on Wikipedia. This statistical imbalance is called "bias" by some. Since editing Wikipedia is totally voluntary, any "bias" of this sort would seem to be the result of different personal choices by men and women themselves about whether to edit on Wikipedia. Some feel that more women should be encouraged to become involved in editing, though this can also be interpreted as insisting that more women should engage in the same activities as men (this is yet another possible form of bias).

The second form of "bias" referred to in the article is that (some) articles put men in a better light than women, including more articles about men and their activities. This may be partially influenced by having more editors who are men.

As we discuss possible types and results of bias based on the sex of the editors, I think it will be helpful to distinguish these two, separable types of bias. Men should not be ashamed of editing on Wikipedia (even if fewer women do it), but all should be careful to edit respectfully. Pete unseth (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

I concur. It is not a "bias", it is a sociological fact. (Women are shorter than men: is it "bias" too?) I found this article where MIT reserchers discovered that women are covered MORE in Wikipedias (all the lang eds studied) than in other sources. I added this finding to the art. Please check if this is so. If it was the case, then WP would be "biased" in favour of women, in fact. Zezen (talk) 08:24, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Pete unseth hereby: I have found this great quote which better expresses that bias ≠ gap than I have attempted here:

Many studies find “gaps,” and reach conclusions that gaps constitute evidence of bias, when, in fact, discrimination is only one of many likely explanations for gaps (see, e.g., my post on Simpson’s Paradox; or Ceci & Williams, 2011, review of sources of the gender gap in science). Some find correlates of gaps around which impressive narratives can be told, without even testing for the existence of discrimination.

Shall we remove this POV "bias" term here then if it is not supported by evidence? Zezen (talk) 08:31, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The researchers you've cited argue that a closer analysis demonstrates serious bias against women—the source even uses the word "bias". I've adjusted the article to reflect this. —Granger (talk · contribs) 13:12, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

The word "bias" in the title sets an interesting slant to the discussion
The claim that more men than women edit on Wikipedia could also be discussed under a variety of titles, including "Apathy of women toward Wikipedia", "Preference of women to use Facebook over Wikipedia", "Women biased against Wikipedia". Frankly, I am not proposing any of these as actual article titles, but I hope it does give a new way to view part of the topic.

The claim that editors perceived to be female are subjected to sexist messages is something I have not witnessed after editing 10 years. I am NOT saying it does not happen, only that I have not seen it. (I tend to edit more serious, academic subjects, so I spend more time on articles that attract thoughtful editors. I have encountered obnoxious editors, but never expressing it about gender.) If women editing on Wikipedia have withdrawn because they have encountered rude people, I suggest they continue editing, persevering to improve this wonderful enterprise called Wikipedia. Don't let rude people chase editors off. Pete unseth (talk) 21:55, 27 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "Bias" is truly not a well-chosen word here. The title could be "Gender imbalance on Wikipedia", for example. --Ajgorhoe (talk) 21:44, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Gender bias on Wikipedia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717034630/http://femtechnet.newschool.edu/wikistorming/ to http://femtechnet.newschool.edu/wikistorming/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150209213415/http://dub.washington.edu/pubs/364 to http://dub.washington.edu/pubs/364

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:03, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Frustrating
I find it very frustrating when anyone tries to help fix this, it gets denied at every turn. Also, as a newbie Wikipedian, I feel like what's the point. Every time I mention something it either gets ignored or rejected. I was even told "Bullshit" at one point. And if I try to make changes other than commas, they are never accepted. It makes me extremely angry. (Reading this talk page also makes me extremely angry.) Tlinse (talk) 22:43, 11 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I know that it can be very frustrating at the beginning, but hang in there, it's worth it! When newcomers edit, these edits are often watched by certain editors. Everyone makes mistakes in the beginning, but the goal is to produce an encyclopedia in many languages with as much knowledge as possible! --WiseWoman (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

Volunteers
Wikipedia is essentially an encyclopedia manned (personed?) by volunteers which means that if there is a gender gap this is because more men are choosing to donate their time than women are. This is in contrast to a business which hires people, where if there was a gender bias the employer could be blamed. We don't need to mention all this but it does make it important that we mention the word volunteers. Why do some editors object? ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 11:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I completely agree. Wikipedia is not choosing men over women; but women are choosing other things over contributing to Wikipedia. The only way to fix the ratio is to get women more interested in contributing to Wikipedia, and that's the direction I'm hoping this conversation goes to. Plus, I don't think that there is much of a bias towards the male perspective because one of the fundamentals of Wikipedia, and why it succeeds, is that it forces articles to be peer-reviewed, which weeds out biases (granted, you might find biases in less popular articles). Kentronhayastan (talk) 03:40, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * We aren't interested in fixing the ratio, we can leave that to others, we are only interested in reliable sources others have re this issue Personally I think men are just as capable as women of fixing gender biases but ur personal opinions don't count ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 08:38, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Richard, unless you are the Queen of England, I would prefer that you avoid use of the royal we. This is important because we have an invested interest in fostering a quality encyclopedia. The gender gap manifests itself in a encyclopedia overly-representing the male perspective, and largely failing to incorporate female perspectives. This leads to inadvertent violations of Wikipedia's intended goal of offering a neutral viewpoint. On my part, I think that the gender gap in terms of contributors is highly related with the general gender disparity in computing.  However, I would argue that there are understandable (and un-soveable) factors that contribute the disparity in terms of article subjects. First of all, a great many of Wikipedia's articles are dedicated to sports-related subjects. A great amount of these articles are biographies of individual athletes. Unfortunately, the reality is that due to the fact the women have far fewer professional sports leagues, and women's sports have been less represented than male sports at the Olympics. Additionally, men's professional sports leagues generally have been around far longer than their female counterparts, and thus have a far larger number of athletes in their annals. As a consequence, I would presume that a decent chunk of the article disparity is composed of sports articles. Additionally (to understate it) women have been either formally or informally excluded from many pursuits throughout much of western history (such as the arts and politics). Thus, the annals in many categories have far greater number of male biographies than female. These are not the only reasons why the article disparity exists, but I would believe that they certainly are a contributing factor.. 04:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Change over time and new studies
There is exactly one article cited here that was published in 2017, and none from 2018. Most are from 2015 or earlier.

I assume there's been a lot more written about this issue, and it would be very useful to know whether there's a trend over time in terms of the gap in participation. Unless this is discussed in a different article (in which case merging is a good idea), this really needs an update. Eikko (talk) 15:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

re: Gender bias
Perhaps it is time to look at the continuing bias despite of extreme repeated efforts from a new perspective: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932017000141

Nergaal (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Helpful to differentiate "gender bias" from statistics about the gender of editors, as much as possible
I realize that men and women are likely to read & edit certain topics disproportionately. If fewer women choose to spend time on Wikipedia, I do not see that as "bias", that is a choice by many individuals. Actual "bias", on the other hand, would be seen in content that disparaged women. We, as a community, can and must work to correct biased content. However, as a man, I do not feel I must edit less so that a larger proportion of edits are done by women. Pete unseth (talk) 18:02, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is relevant because the disparity in editor demographics is widely seen as a major contributing factor in the disparity in coverage. Also bias doesn't necessitate that we have content that disparages a group, but would includes situations where we simply have no, or greatly reduced coverage, even if the coverage we have is ostensibly neutral. I may also mean that where we have comparable coverage, that coverage may be of a substantially lower quality,. For example, comparing the number of GAs and FAs we have about women's verses men's topics.  G M G  talk  18:08, 4 October 2018 (UTC)


 * "Bias" is defined as "prejudice in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair" by Oxford Dictionaries, even Wikipedia's definition is fairly simillar : "Bias is disproportionate weight in favor of or against one thing, person, or group compared with another, usually in a way considered to be unfair". If a restaurant restricts the access of customers based on race, gender, religion - that is bias. If mostly people of a certain demographic (e.g.: gender) chose to go to a certain restaurant - that is not bias. Equating fair personal choices to gender bias is a concept creeping effort that ignores the actual definitions of the concept. Mcrt007 (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)


 * The gender gap around editors leads to disproportionate weight of men's interests (as mentioned by GreenMeansGo above) and points of view. Additionally, environments that are nearly homogenous are so for a reason, intentional or not. Therefore, the gender gap is indicative of an environment that disproportionately disincentivizes female editing and/or disproportionately incentivizes male editing. The gender gap and bias cannot be fully separated because the gender gap affects the writing and did not happen in a vacuum. CLPond (talk) 02:11, 18 January 2019 (UTC)CLPond


 * This entire discussion is embarrassing and the article is tripe. As an outsider with no vested interest, entertaining articles regarding racial and gender bias for Wikipedia editors is such a silly thing. If women (like me) and POCs do not want to contribute to a free encyclopedia, who cares?31.208.27.41 (talk) 10:58, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Please expand "causes" section.
Hello everyone. This is a very important article and it deserves to be updated and expanded. Towards the end of the "causes" section there's one article that I would like to see explained or summarized. I found a pdf of it (the article is licensed under a CC license according to the sagepub database that the DOI takes one to, but here it is freely available elsewhere): https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Wikipedia-%2C-sociology-%2C-and-the-promise-and-of-Big-Adams-Br%C3%BCckner/3113385e688367416c243e32b8442fa5d7acb353 Here is the CC license that they indicate in their publication: http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/ And here's further information at the sagepub database: https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 07:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Potential new sources
Because this topic is so important, I just did a quick superficial search on Google for new sources. I'll list them below to encourage myself, and others, to update this neglected (I wonder why 🙃) article. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 18:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I was curiously searching on YouTube and found another potential source to incorporate:
 * I find this one particularly promising, since it includes an analysis of the literature, was done recently, and works against ethnocentrism. Sincerely, Shashi Sushila Murray, (message me) 00:09, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

What does this mean?
A published source is quoted as saying that editing here requires "particular forms of sociotechnical expertise and authority that constitute the knowledge or epistemological infrastructure of Wikipedia." What does this mean?! Somebody who has access to the original source in its context, please help us understand this. Pete unseth (talk) 19:16, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
 * It means that it's not enough to be good at a certain subject but you need to navigate a complex meta-knowledge on how to write about it on Wikipedia, a peculiar theory of knowledge. From critics, it may be interpreted as an euphemism for "you need to join the groupthink of the male cabal" or "you need to adopt the language of the dominant class to survive". Nemo 18:04, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Being good at a subject is often irrelevant in Wikipedia, since editors are neither allowed to do original research on any topic, nor to express their opinions in the main text of an article. Much of Wikipedia's content is more reflective of its policies, guidelines, and how it evaluates any potential source. Dimadick (talk) 21:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Wat does this mean? It's garbage of the highest order. This is how it is: generally speaking, men and women are different; they have different thought processes, different aspirations, different abilities, different interests and different lots of other things. That's why more men edit Wikipedia than do women. Is this a problem? No. Should anything be done about it? No. Is this whole article a crock of shit? Probably. 5.81.164.70 (talk) 16:47, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That's like...you're opinion...man.  G M G  <sup style="color:#000;font-family:Impact">talk  22:01, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Rationale for dubious template
I'm in discussion with someone in OTRS who pointed out this article to me. I just added a template to the second sentence. To help make sure there's no confusion, I'm not contesting for a second that Wikipedia has "fewer and less extensive articles about women". The reason I added a template is that this implies that this uncontroversial fact is a natural consequence of the gender makeup of Wikipedia. While that's plausible, it is far from obvious and deserves a citation to a study.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Agree. It seems to be a correlation/causation fallacy. It is assuming that women are more likely to write articles about women than men. This may be true, but we should not be making these assumptions. Also there are other factors, such as a general lack of available references available for women in certain topics which is not our fault. Since no one else has commented I will remove it pending a source that makes it clear. AIR<b style="color: green;">corn</b> (talk) 21:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed too. Zezen (talk) 08:15, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Apparent original research
This recently added material looks like WP:SYNTH or just plain WP:OR to me. There is no indication that the cited sources discuss the Wikipedia gender gap or gender bias, so the stated conclusion that the sources' claims explain Wikipedia's gender gap is original research. —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:31, 11 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Could you please participate in this discussion rather than reverting without explanation? —Granger (talk · contribs) 15:19, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I have removed this again, per the reasons explained by Granger. While the article should give more room to discussing external reasons for Wikipedia's gender gaps (in addition to possible biases of Wikipedia itself), this needs to cite reliable sources that explicitly discuss Wikipedia. Regards, HaeB (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Racial bias on Wikipedia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Can we find a better word than proclivity in the first sentence?
I stumbled over the word "proclivity" in the first sentence and had to look it up. I consider myself a near-native English speaker so I think it's fair to assume that others will also not know what this word means. It's an important word (first sentence!). Can we please replace it with something clearer? According to a dictionary entry: "a tendency to choose or do something regularly; an inclination or predisposition towards a particular thing. "a proclivity for hard work" Similar: liking inclination tendency leaning disposition propensity bent bias penchant predisposition predilection partiality preference taste fondness weakness proneness velleity What do you reckon? EMsmile (talk) 03:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I had the same reaction to the word. I completely rewrote the opening sentence, which was "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." I felt it suggested in rather absolute terms that Wikipedia's biases in biographies are caused entirely by editor demographics, which is an assertion the article should explore but isn't a definition. The sentence also left out Wikipedia deficiencies in covering women's views and interests outside of articles that are specifically about women. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 19:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot, Clayoquot - that's so much better! I made a further small change because I think the concept to all three aspects together, not either/or.EMsmile (talk) 05:10, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

Potential reason for little amount of autobiographies
Starting off, I am a female. Let's resume. Let me make this point clear. There are MANY biographies of women here. Most females do not do Wikipedia stuff, they are helping out their nations in their own special way. We do not choose which types of people visit certain websites, ESPECIALLY one which promotes neutrality. It is just the simple, unavoidable fact that more biographies exists of males than females. Instead of trying to create an entire campaign just to "be in support" of a movement, I would like to say this: If an autobiography of a female doesn't exist, it will soon be created. I personally do not see major improvements of women on Wikipedia. Maybe some articles here and there. People get stories written for achievements they made, not for the gender they have. Women rights have only been enacted a few centuries ago, men have always had freedom for THOUSANDS of years. Of course there won't be as many articles! Before someone reverts this topic because I offended their feelings on a place made for differing opinions, please respond to me with 5 major facts that prove there is bias on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.147.231.11 (talk) 00:05, 28 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No bias? Look at the hack job on Sidney Powell, for example, as compared to say, treatment of L. Lin Wood or Rudy Giuliani. Pkeets (talk) 09:05, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Article is built on a false premise
This article is based on an acute distortion, that it is the fault of men, WP editors, for the so called "bias" that is assumed to exist here at Wikipedia, as revealed by the opening statements in the lede and other sections of this article:


 * "Wikipedia gender gap, refers to the fact that Wikipedia contributors are mostly male, the fact that relatively few biographies on Wikipedia are about women, and the concept that topics of interest to women are less well-covered."
 * The fact that male Wikipedia contributors are much higher in number by itself means nothing in terms of bias. No one is stopping women from becoming WP editors and writing articles about women.
 * "In a 2018 survey covering 12 language versions of Wikipedia and some other Wikimedia Foundation projects, 90% of contributors reported their gender as male, 8.8% as female, and 1% as other."
 * This statement is based on the same idea, that this notion of "bias" is simply based on the ratio of male to female editors. Once again, no one is stopping women from making contributions to Wikipedia.
 * Wikipedia's articles about women are less likely to be included, expanded, neutral, and detailed. Language that is considered sexist, loaded, or otherwise gendered has been identified in articles about women."
 * Labels like "sexist" or "loaded" are highly subjective. Some people think that referring to a married woman as Mrs. is "sexist", ignoring the fact that many if not most married women are proud to be and prefer to be identified as being married. Many women like to be called cute, or sexy, or what have you. Has any article, in effect, ever said, she failed because she is a women? No one is saying that truly offensive statements have never been made here at Wikipedia. There can be offensive statements in all subject areas about gender, race, religion, politics, etc. If a given article is that unbalanced it almost always is fixed, usually by male editors, simply because they comprise the vast majority of the editorship here. No one is stopping anyone, male or female, from doing so.
 * "In 2015, Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales announced that the encyclopedia had failed to reach its goal to retain 25% female editorship."
 * Why is that? Again, no one is stopping women from making contributions and writing articles about women.  The fact that this 25% goal has not been reached, in six years,(!!) tells us that most women are simply not interested in history or writing biographies about women. It is not the fault of male "bias".
 * "Wikipedia article "talk" pages, where article content is discussed, is unappealing to many women, "if not outright intimidating".
 * Many editors, both male and female, sometimes find the discussion on Talk pages offensive. However, in my 14+ years of editing and participating on Talk pages, I've never, ever, come across any talk that made offensive statements towards women. No doubt someone can dig up an exception, somewhere, but trying to say that Wikipedia talk pages are inherently or routinely offensive to women, because of men, in itself reveals an acute bias and a distortion aimed at the Wikipedia editors who are men. Making such baseless accusations and assumptions tells us that the real bias is harbored among those pointing the finger here at Wikipedia. This article is actually an insult to the Wikipedia Foundation. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 08:32, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised to see you say that it's . The article cites Wikimedia Foundation research and extensively discusses the views of former executive director Sue Gardner. In any case, we need to follow the sources – do you have any changes to suggest based on reliable sources? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 12:16, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree with User:Gwillhickers entirely, and agree with Mx. Granger. The article quotes content from reliable sources. What you have written here is just your "gut feeling". To say that "no one is stopping women from making contributions to Wikipedia" is nonsense as there is ample published research that provides reasons why less women edit on Wikipedia than men. It's like saying "nobody is stopping women from becoming CEOs of large companies". There are reasons for everything, and consequences for everything. This is what the article Gender bias on Wikipedia is trying to explain. Gender bias is not the only thing. There is also systemic bias for example, see here. - Now let's work on improving this article, which is what a talk page discussion is for. EMsmile (talk) 14:40, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

The fact that many women already edit freely here at Wikipedia clearly supports the idea that no one is stopping women from editing. You are saying that men have this power over women. If that is your position you have just admitted that women are weaker than men and can't perform in an environment where there is no physical strength, shouting, etc involved. And comparing a CEO to freely editing on a public encyclopedia is reaching. For every women that is denied a CEO position you'll find a dozen men who have also been turned down. If we just go by the raw statistics here one could conject that men are more often treated unfairly. All we have are statistics about some simple men to women ratio, conjecture and the notion, supported by your selection of sources, that women are being prevented by men from editing here at Wikipedia. Another thing you have ignored is that throughout history there have been more men involved in history, so naturally there are more biographies, etc, involved. Also ignored is the idea that at least 90% of history books are written by men, and again, no one is stopping women from writing and publishing. The same holds true with history courses -- or are we supposed to believe also that women are being 'prevented by men' from taking history courses and pursuing a career in history? You can cling to your narrow selection of source but no one, much less this article, has addressed those facts. There are biased sources in all areas of study, especially in subjects involving religion, nationality and politics. Social issues are no different. That the article doesn't present one source that offers a different and more realistic view more than suggests that the sources here have been cherry picked and are merely preaching to the choir who clearly harbors their own bias. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any specific objections to the sources in the article, or to the way we're summarized? Or do you have additional sources you feel we should be using?  Without those, it feels like this is getting into WP:FORUM discussions. --Aquillion (talk) 19:07, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The discussion here is addressing how the article is written, and to do that a number of issues have to be addressed. It seems as if you're looking for a way to snub the discussion with 'FORUM'. This issue is news to me, as in all my years of editing I have worked with both male and female editors, and not one womam has ever tried to win a debate by claiming male bias, sexism, etc. I suspect that the ones making such complaints have never even written a biography about a given women. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with Aquillion. You, User:Gwillhickers are using this page as a general discussion page about why there are fewer female Wikipedia editors and whether it matters or not (in your opinion, it doesn't matter). This is not the purpose of a talk page. If you have concrete suggestions on how to improve the article (with reliable sources for any statements that you make), then go ahead. By the way, I never said anywhere that men are actively stopping women from editing on Wikipedia. There are a range of reasons why there are less female editors on Wikipedia. The sources quoted in the article lists them. One of them might simply be less free time available (due to household chores and raising kids), less access to computers and the internet compared to men (in developing countries), less interest in teaching others or sharing knowledge, less interest in entering fierce debates etc. If we don't look into these factors, try to understand them and then think about if there are any barriers that we could possibly remove then nothing will ever change. Just saying "nothing is stopping women to be editors on Wikipedia" is silly; obviously there are reasons for stopping them, otherwise why would the gender ratio be as it is. Furthermore, you keep bringing up editing biographies on Wikipedia. May I remind you that there are way more topics than just biographies. I have done 25,000 edits and none of them have ever been on biographies. There are many topics that are inherently more important for women than for men. Things like female genital mutilation, forced marriage, menstruation, to name but a few. If Wikipedia only has 20% of female editors then those kinds of topics are likely to be less well developed than the topics that men find more interesting. That's just the nature of a volunteer led encyclopedia. EMsmile (talk) 03:05, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "those kinds of topics are likely to be less well developed than the topics that men find more interesting" To what extend do Wikipedia articles reflect the things that are seen as interesting by its editors, and to what extend do they reflect the sources available to them? Over the years I have seen many articles on topics that I find fascinating get deleted because of lack or sources or lack of "reliable" sources (the sources available were not deemed reliable enough), while many articles on topics that I find less interesting than staring at a white wall have been kept. I doubt that Wikipedia reflects my own interests, even in cases where I have created articles from scratch. Deletionpedia now includes 91,272 articles once deleted on Wikipedia, which I assume better reflected their editors' interests. Dimadick (talk) 08:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "No one is stopping women from becoming WP editors and writing articles about women." Actually several female editors have complained about being targets of harassment by fellow editors, and others view Wikipedia as a toxic environment. Can't say that I blame them. Wikipedia has been a large part of my life for a couple of decades now, but the near-constant disputes among editors, frequent cases of POV-pushing, and ever-increasing bureaucracy has a been a source of frustration to me for just as long. Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * EMsmile, the entire controversy surrounds the idea that there are many less female editors and biographies and that male editors and "male bias" is the blame. Since this is a POV issue these things are being discussed. This is not about 'me' so please don't try to make it so as a way to avoid the facts, or, otoh, the lack of them. The fact remains, female editors have all along been contributing to Wikipedia, and no one denies that they encounter unfriendly Talk just like the rest of us. It's just too easy to blame everything on male editors. Yes, I have offered a couple of suggestions on how to improve the article. As to your question,  which I have already addressed in detail: "Just saying "nothing is stopping women to be editors on Wikipedia" is silly; obviously there are reasons for stopping them, otherwise why would the gender ratio be as it is."  I've explained this. Women are simply not interested in history as much as men, just as they're not interested in auto mechanics, chess or hunting, nearly as much as men. As I've explained above, also, the vast majority of history books are written by men. Here also no one is preventing women from writing them -- just ask  Pulitzer Prize winner Annette Gordon-Reed, and the many other women historians.  Otoh, the vast majority of romance novels, where the human social condition plays a central role, are written by women. There are exceptions, but by and large there are actual differences in preferences, tastes, tendencies between men and women, and this well explains the difference in the male to female ratio with Wikipedia editors. You said there are "reasons for stopping them" but par for the course around here, no one can factually explain it other than to point at a ratio. The ratio is easily, and  factually explained.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dimadick Yes, the Talk pages have often proven to be a less than friendly environment, but this is not limited to female targets, by any means. "...several female editors have complained about being targets of harassment by fellow editors. Were they targeted because they were female?  Were they subjected to rank and degrading remarks on a given Talk page? It would be nice if someone could link us to actual examples. Even if one could find actual gender-derogatory remarks, I'm sure you must realize at this late date that any such examples would be a rare exception to the rule. Sadly, this article attempts to present such an exception as some all pervasive rule and is a sweeping indictment on male editors. This is not right. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:42, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Are the sources themselves biased?
I haven't checked them all out yet, but thus far I'm seeing the same sort of ideas, and assumptions, being advanced in the sources used here. In almost every case they are taking the "imbalance" between male and female writers and then (leap!) making the same assumption that this is all because of male bias.

For example in the work by JOSEPH REAGLE and LAUREN RHUE some rather questionable assertions are being made.


 * "In her study of the Encyclopædia Britannica, historian Gillian Thomas notes that, as contributors, women were relegated to matters of “social and purely feminine affairs”.
 * Aside from not substantiating this claim with established fact, I thought the complaint here was that there was not enough coverage about women and lack of women editors. Yet, when women are "relegated" to write about women's affairs this all of the sudden becomes an issue.
 * "Thomas reported that of the some 1,500 authors contributing to the 11th Britannica, 35 of them were women (about 2%), with no woman listed among the 49 editorial advisors (1992, p. 18)."
 * Here again a claim is being made about a gender imbalance with no factual explanation to support it. The claim is made with the assumption that "bias" is automatically the reason, while they don't even acknowledge the fact that fewer women, by far, pursue fields in history and science. The ignore the fact that many women are simply not interested in these things any more than they are auto mechanics.
 * "Centuries later, privileged women had greater access to learning and were lauded for supposed feminine virtues, but otherwise chauvinism persisted."
 * This has nothing to do with affairs here at Wikipedia but serves to reveal the bias, and even the cultural ignorance, of these academics who are being used to support this article. Throughout history it was expected of women to keep the homestead and look after their children, and most of this social pressure came from other women. Today this idea is often ridiculed as "barefoot and pregnant" or some such other debasing, anti-social, notion that belittles women. Otoh, the idea of "chauvinism" is the same sort of debasing notion towards men. Up until recently life was short, unforgiving and for the most part cruel. Men were expected to act "macho" and present a strong front, not a weak, touchy-feely, please everyone, attitude. However, this sort of attitude is not evident here. Both male and female editors have the same access to Wikipedia, and as is evident of the thousands of female editors, have been writing articles about men and women all along. Simply because there are fewer articles about women does not mean that male editors at Wikipedia are the blame. This article should not present this idea as fact, but as the opinions of 'some' academics, per NPOV.
 * I read also that there is an imbalance of male and female coverage in many writings. Take George Washington for a definitive example. Washington inspired revolutionary ideals, soon became the commanding general, fought many battles and became the first president of the United States for his efforts. How is anyone supposed to write just as much material about his wife Martha Washington, or other women, in such an article? Is the Washington article "male-biased" because Martha is only mentioned a few times? There has not been one example presented around here where a Wikipedia article censures or omits coverage about any women where there is material on that women to be covered. It took me only a couple of minutes of reading to find some examples of anti-male bias in the sources. I'll continue the search and bring some of the more definitive examples to light as I get the chance. In the mean time it would be nice if this article expressed some good faith for the vast majority of male editors at Wikipedia who have always treated women around here fairly. As it is it gives the opposite impression. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

First a reply, and then a question:
 * "Are the sources themselves biased?" Why would that matter? Wikipedia's neutrality applies to its own articles, not to the sources it uses. Per Biased_or_opinionated_sources: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
 * "Thomas reported that of the some 1,500 authors contributing to the 11th Britannica, 35 of them were women (about 2%), with no woman listed among the 49 editorial advisors (1992, p. 18)." This has more to do with bias in Encyclopædia Britannica, not in Wikipedia. While we often use the 11th edition as a source, we are far from relying exclusively on it. And Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition was published from 1910 to 1911. Is it newsworthy that the researcher found gender bias during the Edwardian era? Dimadick (talk) 08:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * You're using examples at Britannica, which is not a public work where anyone can edit, like Wikipedia. Can you actually point to any such examples here at Wikipedia, where women are "relegated" to contribute in a lesser capacity?  No one has thus far, not even in this article. We don't even know why the women at Britannica are not on the advisory board.  Perhaps their credentials are less. Perhaps there are seniority issues. Are you suggesting women be included on the advisory board simply because they're women? So far, all they have given us are numbers.  There has to be actual and provable issues before we leap to any conclusions, and so far no one has - just asumptions and the usual conjecture that accompany them. While were at it, I'm noticing that the sources too often refer to Britannic, and other places, in an attempt to make their case here. As for the "gender bias during the Edwardian era", we are talking about an era of more than 100 years ago, where it was expected that men and women assumed their given roles, and much of the social pressure to do so came from women. This advent hardly makes a case at Wikipedia here in the 21st century. This issue, and this article, relies heavily on this sort of thing, which is why this section was initiated. We may as well refer to "gender bias" in the bronze age while we're at it.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Inconclusive statements
The article has a number of inconclusive and questionable statements, and in some case more than suggest that the reason behind the gender gap is actually the fault of women.

Examples:

'''"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." '''
 * In the Gender bias in participation section it claims:
 * I added the 'why?' tag to this statement because the section does not explains this at all. All it does, typically, is to continue displaying numerical stat's as if this all by itself is supposed to add up to the idea that male-editors and "male bias" here at Wikipedia is to blame.  No where in the article, btw, does it explain if this advent is intentional or circumstantial, or both.
 * In the Causes of gender bias in participation section it lists several reasons why women supposedly do not edit as much as men: "A lack of user-friendliness in the editing interface."
 * In my years of experience I've indeed come across less than friendly discussions on Talk pages, from both men and women. This to be expected in a forum where "anyone can edit". What does anyone think, that inviting the entire world, with all of its political, social, religious and national inclinations were going to all hold hands and srupress their views? The statement comes off very naive and idealistic.
 * "Not having enough free time."
 * How is it that, overall, men have more free time than women? Perhaps we should let this statement ride, because it supports the idea that the reason for the gender gap is not always because of "male bias". However, since the article, and no one, can explain why men are assumed to have more time to contribute than women the statement is rather baseless and should be removed.
 * "A lack of self-confidence."
 * The article now seems to be asserting the idea that men have more self-confidence than women.
 * "Aversion to conflict and an unwillingness to participate in lengthy edit wars."
 * Edit wars, unfortunately, can not be avoided in a forum where "anyone can edit" for reasons that should be obvious as explained above. In fact, I just made two attempts to make statements more objective, and both edits were reverted within minutes, with only empty claims to support them. In one case  claims, in edit history, "There is an entire section dedicated to the question of why there is a gender imbalance in participation.", which is not true.  All the section offers are numbers – there is no actual explanation, and opinions about those numbers. The article well explains a "gender gap", but has not explained how this has boiled down to "male bias".  All they've handed us thus far are claims than men overall have more computer skills than women, men have more time to edit, women are more adverse to conflict, etc. In fact, the article at times actually asserts reasons why women are less capable as editors than men, which is not true. The article needs much work.

Once again the sources in many cases are not even written by scholars in psychology or social science and too often are simply written by college academics or journalists who have simply given us numbers for male to female editors and have leaped to their own conclusions. No one has given us a list of editors who have been banned for sexual harassment (is there even one?), edit warring with a female editor because she's a women, or has linked us to one single Talk page where "male bias" is clearly evident, not assumed, and which has targeted a female editor for no other reason than she is a women. If "male bias" is supposed to be this all pervasive occurrence here at Wikipedia, where are the actual examples? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Gwillhickers. I think you have a good point about the causes section, and it might be a good idea to include something along the lines of “no definitive causal factors have been agreed upon, but some researchers suspect that [blah blah blah] contribute to the problem”. It’s important to remember here that Wikipedia is not for original research, so we can’t really do much about your concerns but try to find more opinions from researchers who have tackled the issue. <font face="Avenir, Futura, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 02:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * — Thanks HTGS. I've no issue with closing the gender gap and bringing more women on board. Women, though not as visible in historical and scientific accounts, have always played a very important role throughout history. My only issue is that the lower numbers of female editors, and articles about women, is all the fault of male editors. Over the last few years I've always seen the banner trying to recruit more women, but it gave no clue to the idea that "male bias" was this all pervasive problem driving women away. Believe it or not, I just found out about this "male bias" issue a week or so again, and it was received like an ungreatful kick in the teeth and an indictment on Wikipedia overall. I'm hoping somewhere along the line the article will represent the greater bulk of male editors in a more realistic light.  As it is, the article makes no such distinctions and could easily give the impression that men have this power over women – on a silent on-line forum where everyone edits in privacy.    — Currently there is a 4 to 4 even consensus to move/not move the title name. Even if it was a 5 to 4 consensus in favor of moving, I have always opposed making decisions on a marginal consensus, so I'm not about to change my tune now.  I'm hoping that a fair compromise will be reached in the language used. e.g.Instead of saying, in so many words, the gender gap is the result of male bias, we should say, according to 'this' source, male bias is the problem. We should also remember that the idea of "bias" is a highly opinionated entity, so we should not present it as an absolute fact. One of the pillars of Wikipedia is Neutrality, yet this article uses sources that are far from neutral. Journalists, academics, etc are always quick to pick up the pen to cover something they deem is negative -  this is why we don't see one source out there that covers the great job Wikipedia has done over the last twenty years. Keep well.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:29, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps by "highly opinionated matter" you mean "a topic that can evoke strong feelings in people" or something similar? Otherwise it sounds like you're questioning whether bias exists at all. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No one can help you interpret the way something "sounds like". The question remains, that is "male bias" something that is typical of male editors to the extent that it has driven thousands of women away and that it warrants an article about it - one that gives us no indication as to the performance of the bulk of male editors? Like yourself, men very often write about subjects involving men - the same is conversely true with women. So in that sense, there is a bias, but I would refer to it more as a preference. As mentioned, no one has pointed/linked to one single example of any "male bias" in its negative aspect, or any male editors who have been banned for such. Not one. All we have is conjecture based on a ratio. All you've given us, typically, is an apparent opinion about myself and haven't addressed the other dozen or so points, and quotes from sources, that have come up. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I appear to have touched a nerve, I do apologise. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:30, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears you're just trying to keep the issue personal as a means of avoiding the issues. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , we keep having these exchanges, and I keep feeling like you're misreading the article somehow. The article does not take the stance that men are a problem, nor that the gender gap (or gender bias) is the result of some nefarious "male bias". The words "male bias", which you keep putting in quote marks don't even show up on the page! And if they did, I suspect they would only mean that there is a bias in usership towards male over female, the same way there is a bias in marine representation at Sea World towards dolphins over urchins—it isn't implied that the dolphins did anything wrong, it's simply the statistical state of affairs. It is not the POV of the article that it is men's fault; though there are some opinions (recounted in what I see as quite a neutral tone) that suggest that there might be an environment at Wikipedia which women don't enjoy. I would understand if your problem were solely with the article title, which I also feel is misleading if read the wrong way, but you seem to feel that the article content itself has some bias against men? I can't say I agree at all. The tone of the whole thing does not read like men or male participation is the problem, and it seems at "worst" to only support the idea that more women should be encouraged to participate in the Wikipedia project we're all so invested in. <font face="Avenir, Futura, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 22:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes the article doesn't say "male bias", it says, beginning with the title, "gender bias", and then goes on to speculate how female editors find the Wikipedia environment unfriendly towards women, etc, etc. Here is just a sampling of the sources chosen for this article: Starting with the title, this is the general theme of the article. A number of editors, past and present, feel the title, and the theme, of the article is misleading and is composed of supposition almost entirely and is based on such sources, indeed listed in the References section. The only concrete facts presented thus far are the ratios for male to female editors and the number of articles about women. I have quoted from the article a good number of times trying to point out the negative bias towards male editors. You seem to be suggesting that the article is not pointing a finger at assumed problematic male editors. Are you now trying to say women don't participate near as much as men for reasons of their own overall, having little to do with the behavior of male editors? The article, and its sources, more than convey the idea that the ratio of male to female editors, and their assumed attitude towards women, is 'the' problem. In other words, male editors overall are assumed to be the problem. The article, and its sources, doesn't bother to qualify anything – it simply speaks in a general and overly obtuse capacity. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "The Wikipedia wars: does it matter if our biggest source of knowledge is written by men? —Wikipedia is the world’s most popular encyclopaedia, a collaborative utopia. But only one in every ten of its editors is a woman."
 * "How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women"
 * "Making the edit: why we need more women in Wikipedia"
 * Why women don't participate as much as men is an incredibly interesting question, and yes, I think it's entirely possible many women have reasons intrinsic to themselves that they don't participate at the same rates, but this is a question that this article can, should, and does address. This question is not one for us to ponder, but to report on. (This is still an encycolpedic article in the main space, after all.) There is no reason to see a request for more women as a simultaneous call for fewer men. I'm not sure whether it's the case, and I certainly don't want to be offensive, but many of your comments here seem like you could be coming from a place of defensiveness. If articles in the Atlantic are accusing Wikipedia of being hostile, perhaps they are wrong. But it too often sounds like your issue is with them, not with this article which only catalogs these "reports" on these "problems". (And if real women are reporting that Wikipedia has been a hostile place for them, I feel it is our responsibility to listen, work out if they're right and then improve The Project, not to take these concerns as attacks on us personally.) <font face="Avenir, Futura, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 23:34, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedia Talk page environment is often unfriendly, given the political, social, national and religious diversity of its editors. This is the crux of the problem. The reason why the unfriendliness comes from male editors mostly is simply because they compose the greater bulk of the editorship. Did you know that the biggest source of crime in Japan involves the Japanese? Is the problem due to the fact that they're Japanese? Shall we carry on about the ratio between Japanese and non Japanese citizens and blame it on that? Absured – as is the premise of this article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd also like to add that some of your issues with the article ("it speaks in a general and overly obtuse capacity", and biased source selection) are ones that you could address yourself. It's not just you, but I'm so sick of editors who complain more than they put effort into fixing problem articles. Please, do go and find sources that address the issue without an "anti-male bias"! Without these, we do run the risk of the article being overrun by "anti-male" opinion pieces. (Though I do note and appreciate efforts made by .) <font face="Avenir, Futura, sans-serif">— HTGS (talk) 23:43, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Clayoquot. The only way to fix anything, if indeed it needs fixing, is to address the root causes, which I've been attempting to do. A good place to begin would be with the sources chosen to justify the general premise of this article. As I mentioned, we will be hard pressed to find sources saying what a great job editors have done at Wikipedia over the last 20 years. Since most of the editors are men that would undermine the general theme of this article. The sources used in this article, such that they are, are all on one side of the fence.  -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:47, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't have the energy to go through this all, but one will note that "editing interface" has nothing to do with editor behavior. Urve  (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with many of the statements made above by people who are trying to have discussions with User:Gwillhickers. I really feel we are wasting our breath here though because whatever arguments everyone else brings to the table, nothing seems to sway User:Gwillhickers in the slightest. He's made up his mind, he wants to feel offended and unappreciated ("us poor males are being discriminated against now!") and he keeps complaining about the article at hand instead of improving it. If you want to improve it, just do a Google search for more and reliable sources and then quote and explain whatever those sources say about whether there is a gender bias on Wikipedia or not, and if there is one, what can be done about it. Nobody, except a few disgruntled male editors (?) has ever suggested that the solution would be to have FEWER male editors. We all want MORE male AND female editors but we also want more male editors who are more sensitive to this topic and are willing to learn and possible change their ways and communication styles (the policy about WP:NOBITE is a very good one, too). Obviously it is not easy to prove that sexism on talk pages is at play sometimes. It can be very subtle, even unintentional possibly. I encounter it with quite some regularity. Let me give you an example from the talk page of India (see here): An experienced long term male editor (User:Fowler&fowler) addressed another editor several times as "he" even though the other editor pointed out several times that she is not a he. She said: "If you don't know somebody's gender, why not use the singular they?". He replied: "You could have simply said you are female. It is important to acknowledge that in an enterprise that is pretty much all male." My reply was: "I find that very offensive. You are implying that the onus is on us (yes, I am also female) to state that we are female in order to avoid being called "he/his" because you say it's an all male environment. We all know about the serious gender gap in Wikipedia (about 80% male editors) and people like you don't make it any easier for females to feel welcome here! It's a simply rule: if you don't know the gender of another Wikipedian, use they/them or use "he or she". That's really not too much to ask and would show that you are welcoming anyone to edit and don't make assumptions that "the normal Wikipedia editor is male". " Us female editors get this kind of stuff all the time. It can be really off-putting. Recently, someone also called out potentially sexist behaviour towards me on my talk page. That other user wrote: "I have some real concerns that some of the input into the current discussions seem quite barbed and assertive. I almost added a comment to my latest addition to suggest that it may be sexist bullying at a low level. The construction and phrasing of some of the comments are demeaning and belittling especially from one editor who has been around for as long as I have." (you can see that here). I was grateful for that show of support. - Another one of your gripes is that we are talking negatively about Wikipedia's achievements and that "the media would have a field day". Well, I actually think the media gave us plenty of positive lime light for our 20 year anniversary this year. Nevertheless, every amazing project can review what they do even better. If Wikimedia Foundation and scholars want to investigate ways to improve participation of female editors and if they want to investigate whether this would reduce gender bias then I think that's great. No need to sweep problems under the carpet. I won't engage further in this discussion because I don't have time, and this talk page is not meant to be used as a discussion forum. I rather invest my time into editing Wikipedia articles and improving them. Maybe, before replying, just sit back for a while, ponder and reflect and try not to dominate this talk page with your views. If you have concrete ideas on how to improve the article, why not be bold and just do it? Please use reliable sources if you add new content. EMsmile (talk) 13:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have received replies from many editors so I respond to those replies, and also add my own views when I feel it's appropriate. I don't have this power to prevent someone else from doing so. This is not "dominating " the talk page, which is a little curious coming from someone who just committed nearly a full page of text lecturing me. "I don't have the time"? I have added suggestions for article improvement, but apparently you've missed those too. Also, I have never claimed that anyone is "griping" about Wikipedia's achievements". Please review the discussion and try to respond to what was actually written, rather than reading your own notions into what was never said. No one has ever denied that sexist or derogatory statements have ever been made here at Wikipedia. The contention was, is this something so frequent and out of control that it warrants an article -- one which speaks in obtuse tones and makes no distinction as to the frequency of such alleged behavior? This question continues to be avoided, which in of itself speaks volumes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have received replies from many editors so I respond to those replies, and also add my own views when I feel it's appropriate. I don't have this power to prevent someone else from doing so. This is not "dominating " the talk page, which is a little curious coming from someone who just committed nearly a full page of text lecturing me. "I don't have the time"? I have added suggestions for article improvement, but apparently you've missed those too. Also, I have never claimed that anyone is "griping" about Wikipedia's achievements". Please review the discussion and try to respond to what was actually written, rather than reading your own notions into what was never said. No one has ever denied that sexist or derogatory statements have ever been made here at Wikipedia. The contention was, is this something so frequent and out of control that it warrants an article -- one which speaks in obtuse tones and makes no distinction as to the frequency of such alleged behavior? This question continues to be avoided, which in of itself speaks volumes. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:48, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Bowing out
It's pretty clear that my position doesn't have much support around here, so it's time to bow out. You can go on believing that most of the male editors who have contributed 80-90 % of the articles here have been "biased, sexist, unfriendly", etc to the women editors. It seems if that were actually true, Wikipedia would not have remained one of the most widely used websites in the world all of these years. I had asked for examples of this so called male bias that has supposedly blocked or discouraged all these (helpless?) women from editing. If the only thing someone can bring to the table to support the idea is that some 'she' was referred to as a 'he', which no doubt was unintentional, then that's a bit disappointing. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Endless sealioning, condescension, and strawmanning (I have no idea where you get the idea that the article says "most of the male editors" are biased) also discourages women from editing. Urve  (talk) 22:55, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * When someone claims that there is a gender bias that discourages women, and attempts to support this notion with the simple idea that most of the editors are male, without making any qualifications, then it goes that all male editors are being lumped in as being responsible. This has been gone over several times now. You have "no idea"? Please review the article and discussion before making these inappropriate one-liner retorts. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, it does not mean all male editors are responsible. It means there is a gap of participation. I sincerely doubt that anyone here believes "most of the male editors" are responsible for anything, so it was your parting shot that was inappropriate. The behavior of a few men are being criticized in above sections for, eg, misgendering an editor - that is not a normative claim about most men. Urve  (talk) 23:07, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does the article make it clear that most male editors are not responsible for the lower numbers of female editors? (Answer please) Again, it speaks in grossly general tones and just refers to men in general. The gender gap has repeatedly been used to substantiate the idea that male editors are discouraging women from editing. The sources themselves convey this idea. What are we to think when a source's title is "How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women"? The source focus on men. Then we have a source entitled, "Making the edit: why we need more women in Wikipedia".  which more than suggests that a male majority, all by itself, poses some sort of problem, and that the only way to solve it is by bringing on more women editors, as if their sex alone is the determining factor. If the genders in the title were reversed it would readily be referred to as "sexist". I've was trying to bow out but you keep making erroneous assertions. Again, the article refers to men in general. If you can show us where the article makes it clear that the majority of male editors are not posing some sort of problem, I'll be happy to eat crow and be on my way. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Where does the article make it clear that most male editors are not responsible for the lower numbers of female editors? Proving a negative is difficult. It's your obligation to point out where it does say that "most" male editors are "responsible" - and it doesn't. And even if it did, fix it yourself.
 * Regarding "How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women": That's not what it's about. It is not about "most of the male editors" being "sexist". It is about subconscious bias -- not conscious, as it takes pains to say, as eg when it quotes an ArbCom member: "I don’t think anyone on the Arbitration Committee is intentionally trying to keep women and other minorities out of Wikipedia, but I do think that the decisions sometimes have that effect". And it also is about the content disparity keeping women away, not necessarily just there being more men - though the former is a function of the latter. Whatever "speak[ing] in grossly general tones" about men is supposed to mean, it doesn't do, other than just saying that there are some poorly behaved men, that women feel uncomfortable as a result, and that there is a content/participation gap.
 * Regarding "Making the edit: why we need more women in Wikipedia": No, it does not say that men are a problem. It says more women are good. Editor recruitment is not zero-sum.
 * If this is how you bow out -- a ton of WP:IDHT and sealioning -- then I have little hope. Urve  (talk) 04:12, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * IDHT? Didn't hear what?  That shoe has been on the other foot from the beginning. It was asked if there were enough examples here at Wikipedia to justify an article of this sort. Even the sources don't cite actual and ongoing examples. Just stats and conjecture wholly based on assumptions about a ratio. I quoted from the sources and article text with comments numerous times, with no following replies. The titles of some of the sources were pointed out. e.g. How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women. No replies. In the middle of a dispute the neutrality tag was removed, twice.  Text on this Talk page was collapsed into a box. It was asked where in the article did it make it clear that the greater majority of male-editors were not the problem -- no reply, understandably, because the article speaks in an obtuse and general capacity. It was pointed out that most women are simply not interested in history and so forth, which would help to explain the male to female ratio.  No comments, and the article doesn't even touch on that idea, at all.  It's a little sad to see some editors try to burn their own church down for a few alleged mice. The gender gap campaign has been going on for some five years, with no appreciable change. I guess it's still the fault of them mean ol' male editors, huh? If the same amount of energy and enthusiasm was put into writing articles about women much of your 'problem' would have been resolved. Just for the record. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:04, 21 March 2021 (UTC)