Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia/Archive 3

Effects of the gender gap in participation
I just removed the following:


 * The gender gap in participation, among other factors, contributes to a lack of female perspective in both scope and coverage across the project.

I found this problematic because it was stated as if it were a fact, but it isn't a fact. (The body of the article does not cite any research that shows a cause-and-effect relationship between the gender gap in participation and gender bias in the scope and coverage of the project). I guess it could be included if attributed to a particular commentator as an opinion, but in the Slate piece it's given only as the opinion of the journalists rather than the opinion of an expert. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 02:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Has it ever occurred to the "bias" believers that the reason there are many more biographies about men is that, throughout history, around the world, the vast majority of the subjects were, and are, male? Another factor that explains the lower number of female biographies is that most women are simply not that interested in history. That's correct.  Look at all the history books, new and old.  At the very least 90% of them are written by men, while no one is stopping women from writing and publishing. Look at the ratio of male to female students who major in history in college. The same. No one is stopping women from taking history courses and pursuing a career in history. You can't take a statistic about the ratio of male to female biographies, all by itself, and claim "systemic bias", which in of itself shows a negative bias against men. It's also an indictment about the majority of WP editors, who are male, that there is some sort of conspiracy not to write about women. Realize also that many of the men who went down in history would have preferred not to have been. i.e. Forgotten, but alive and well.  It's unfortunate that such divisive, or hate, speech, however 'polity' spoken, is promoted by those who are evidently ignorant about history overall and seem to harbor a narrow or distorted view of men. If anyone wants to increase the number of biographies about women, they should simply create them. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * This might be out of topic, but I never understood why all the emphasis on Wikipedia's gender bias is on its biographical articles. I have worked on-and-off on articles and categories about women writers, musicians, and artists for over a decade. We often have an article on the person itself, but lack articles on their works. We also lack articles on many women's organizations. Yesterday, I came across an article mentioning a women's organization which published research on Welsh folk music and preserved recordings of many otherwise obscure songs. The article covered the life of a member of the organization, but we lack an article on the organization itself or its publications. This is not a unique case of a lack of coverage. Dimadick (talk) 07:19, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Citing data from a 2015 study, I've added some of the findings which indicate how the participation of women can be limited. It is highly informative and clearly demonstrates how gender biases can be manifested in 'manifold and subtle ways' and the knock-on impact this can produce for female contribution, visibility and perspective on Wikipedia. FrankieBruno (talk) 16:52, 7 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Gwillhickers -- Your assertion that: "no one is stopping women from writing and publishing" is historically fallacious. It may be closer to true in the modern era, but historically this is an unambiguously factually incorrect statement. You are strongly encouraged to do research regarding this assertion, particularly in the context of this conversation.

Gwillhickers Your views on this page are highly problematic, and frankly offensive to me as a woman. I'll keep my points brief; you say "the vast majority of the subjects were and are male" - why do you think that is? I will tell you. Systemic bias. Look up women inventors, such as Margaret Knight, Elizabeth Magie or Chien-Siung Wu, for example. Systemic bias is what has precluded them and countless other women from the history books for so long. "Most women are simply not that interested in history" - where does this claim come from? According to historians.org, 2/3s of historians are women. What an incredibly generalised and biased statement to make. You say most history books are written by men and women aren't being stopped from publishing. Again, your ignorance is astounding. Historically, do you know how hard women had to fight to be considered publishable, compared to men? Do you know that many women would need to attempt to publish under a male name so as to avoid discrimination? Evidently not. What about other barriers, such as access to education (historically) or prejudice within academia itself, or the fact that women were largely made to be responsible for children, and couldn't put forth the time to study and publish? I could continue on with attempting to educate you, but it's not up to me as a woman to do so. If you call yourself a historian, as your wikipedia page suggests, I urge you to research the history of gender discrimination and systemic bias against women. Harriett Potter (talk) 12:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hello Harriett Potter and welcome to this discussion. I agree with you 100% and just wanted to warn you that you might be wasting your breath with that particular user. We've had ample discussions with him and never got anywhere. Just take a look at the discussions that are now in the archive of this talk page (link is above) and you'll see what I mean. I was happy when the discussion went quiet because it was leading nowhere, sadly, except making me and others feel rather upset. Luckily, his views are a minority view amongst editors on Wikipedia, I would say. EMsmile (talk) 13:26, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello EMsmile, thanks for your comment and support. I agree that anything said to this particular user is likely to be futile. I somewhat surmised this beforehand but felt I needed to say something anyway for the public record in case any other users have similar views, and also just because these things should be called out and talked about. It can be a difficult environment on here for women but I am committed to doing what I can to change that. I'm glad you are of the opinion that his views are in the minority! Thanks again. Harriett Potter (talk) 13:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The issues you speak of have been well addressed by myself which have roundly been ignored, while I've had my discussions removed from the Talk page and have been accused of badgering, etc. Please be reminded that this Talk page is for article improvement and is not the place to make personal attacks, and vent gossip, esp since I have not been around here for some time and do not make edits to this article.  Regarding "systemic bias" -- this fall back phrase has been used so much it has lost much of its meaning.  You complained that since women have been " largely made to be responsible for children" they have not had the chance to go out and make history, as if this was some sort of privilege. Many of the men who went down in history would have preferred not to have done so, as they have made many sacrifices, including their very lives, to accomplish what you seem to think is a desirable goal. Yes, most of history involves men, for the simple reason that they were largely the ones out in the world. e.g.half a million people died during the civil war -- 99+% of that figure involved men. This is not to say many women have not not gone down in history. The only way others will find out about them is to write about them.
 * "made to be responsible"?? Women carry children into this world, nurse them during infancy, and most often prefer to be the primary care takers for their own children. The infants and young children, for some strange reason, seem to prefer it that way. Throughout history much of the social pressure to do so came from other women, so I would lose that offensive notion that men always wanted their wives "barefoot and pregnant" and "chained to a stove". It's insulting to many women and belittles the role of motherhood, which actually takes more brains and commitment than most jobs.
 * As you seem to know, I have contended that no one is stopping women from writing articles about women around here. Most of the insulting language, personal attacks, etc on WP Talk pages are directed at men, as you and another editor have just demonstrated. This doesn't stop male editors from contributing to WP. Neither does it for women. Take a better look. I have cited dozens of women historians who have had no problems writing and publishing books on history in the real world, including Pulitzer Prize winner Annette Gordon-Reed. This idea was also ignored, and likely will be brushed off again. We'll see.
 * The only thing that supports the notion of "gender bias" on WP is the high ratio of male to female editors. This was easily explained already, as most women are simply not interested in history, anymore than most are not interested in auto-mechanics, chess and hunting. This reality has been ignored by the 'blame the man' crowd. I am fully aware of real negative bias towards women among some men, but such things have been used to promote gender denial, as if our creator, or nature, if you prefer, didn't know what it was doing when it made two distinct sexes for virtually all species of life. If you would like to see more articles about women I suggest you pick up your 'pen' and start writing. You are in the privacy of your home, and no one can delete your edits without showing good cause. The existence of this article alone is proof of that, not to mention all the other articles about women here at WP. The call to close the gender gap here at WP has been going on for over five years. Why have not large numbers of women flocked to WP and joined in that effort? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 16:53, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that "most women are simply not interested in history"? Richard Nevell (talk) 20:23, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 15 March 2021

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Most editors argue that the topic, as reflected in reliable sources, is not just a "gap" but also bias that leads to a gap; furthermore, reliable sources state that this bias is also reflected in Wikipedia's content as well. They therefore oppose changing the title to narrow the scope. Some supporters of the move argue that the gap is not motivated by bias but they have not cited reliable sources that would outweigh the many sources that do describe bias. (t · c)  buidhe  11:27, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Gender bias on Wikipedia → Wikipedia gender gap – I think this article should be at "Wikipedia gender gap" rather than "Gender bias on Wikipedia".
 * The term "gender gap" appears to be more common. A Google search for " Wikipedia "gender gap" " brings up 458,000 results, whereas a Google search for " Wikipedia "gender bias" " brings up 228,000 results.
 * When referring to gender in editor demographics or gender in the quantity of biographies, the term "gender gap" is more neutral as it doesn't embody assumptions about causes and isn't an implicit value judgement. Gender in editor demographics and gender in the quantity of biographies are by far the most common things that people are referring to when people way say that Wikipedia has gender bias. There are some other issues, such as lexical bias that this article would still need to cover. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 17:25, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * For reference, please note the two previous move discussions: Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia/Archive 1, Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia/Archive 1. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 17:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree with . There is clearly a difference, a gap, between the number of male to female editors here at Wikipedia, for real life reasons, as outlined in the above two sections, but to blame this all on "male bias" is narrow minded, hostile and clearly a POV issue. What ever happened to Assume Good Faith? The article needs to have a neutral and objective title, and this victimhood and anti-male mentality needs to be checked at the door. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This would effectively move the entire Gender bias in content section out of scope, which is a problem when it has such significant coverage in reliable sources and is clearly related to the same topic. Possibly the article should be shifted to focus more on that instead, since based on the sources it's a key aspect of why the gender balance among editors matters. --Aquillion (talk) 19:09, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Once again, there is nothing to stop a women from creating a biography about women here at Wikipedia. It only takes one person to create an article. There are no male editors guarding the gate or ganging up on any women who creates an article. The truth is women in general are not creating articles about women, for various reasons that have, thus far, been ignored. That is the reason for this gap. Blaming it on men is just too easy and reveals that there is a systemic bias among those who are pointing the finger. As reliable sources go, I have seen a POV pushed many times by simply selecting the "reliable sources" that support someone's notion. It is clearly happening here. How many male editors have been banned for making sexist remarks, etc towards women editors?  Does anyone even know? If sexism and anti-female bias really exist here at Wikipedia in such alarming proportions then there should be a long list of male editors who have been banned. Where is it?  Where is the actual proof? (Answer please.) Statistics, and conjecture about statics, are not proof. The current title is based on an assumption and reveals its own bias. The article needs to be rewritten, additional and fair minded sources brought in, and needs to address both POV's, not just a one-sided POV based on raw statistics about the number of male and female editors. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The previous discussion to Move lasted only a few days, with only four editors, some of whom are totally absorbed in this gender gap and other such issues, who chimed in. Nearly all editors come to Wikipedia to write, not make some biased social statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:59, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. There's no reason whatsoever that a bias in content doesn't also fit under the gap in female representation. Not that I think we would have to, but "Gender bias in content" could easily be rephrased as "Gender gap in content". — HTGS (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't see why we would have to remove the Gender bias in content section. Why not just leave it in? And I can't help but notice that you referred to "why the gender balance among editors matters" not "why gender bias among editors matters". Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 06:36, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support as presented. It's clear that people, even here, are interpreting the term "bias" in two different ways. Some see it as accusatory, implying that Wikipedia, in some sense, is opposed to or acting against women. Others see it as purely statistical, implying a lean in numbers and percentages one way or another. I see too many people talking past each other, and frankly this is enough for me to support the move. If "gap" has one meaning (the difference in numbers, whether in content, editors, or otherwise), but "bias" has two possible interpretations (as above), then we should be using the less ambiguous term. — HTGS (talk) 21:08, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed many facts are just being brushed aside here. The simple fact remains, no one is stopping women from coming to Wikipedia and creating articles. If so, no one has been able to factually substantiate this idea. All that has been presented are notions, claims and conjecture, based on the simple statistic about the men to women ratio here at Wikipedia. Are men harassing women on Talk pages? Are they somehow preventing them from creating articles about women? One of the central reasons for the relatively low numbers of women biographies is due to the fact that they are simply not being created by both male and female editors. Also, throughout history men have been central to historical events, this in neither good nor bad by itself, so naturally there are going to be many more articles involving men. Some people have turned this affair into a men v women contest, where the issue are all the fault of us male editors. It's always nice to be appreciated for our years of contributions. This whole issue is self defeating and only serves to discredit our encyclopedia and to discourage women from coming to Wikipedia for reference work or to undertake writing. Thanks guys! -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:02, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I caution you against making this political, . The question here, for me at least, is whether the article is appropriately titled for its content; not whether there is any antagonism against women on Wikipedia, whether individual or systemic. Any issues of misogynistic bias can certainly be talked about under this umbrella, but the article title has to be able to cover both anti-women "bias", and the simple issue of under-representation, and I believe that "gender gap" does that better than "gender bias". — HTGS (talk) 23:26, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The whole premise of the article, as it is, involves an assumed bias against women and how women are discouraged by male editors from participation, and the title of the article reflects that premise, so I would have to caution you not to discourage discussion about these things while the title of the article is being debated. Having said that, I agree with your closing statement. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree. The "whole premise of the article" is as stated in the first sentence of the lead: Gender bias on Wikipedia […] refers to the fact that Wikipedia contributors are mostly male, [and] relatively few biographies on Wikipedia are about women. The topic of the article is the disparity between male and female editors, and between male and female content. If it were not, then I would be inclined to vote against changing the article title. (On a personal note, I advise you to relax yourself emotionally about this topic. It is not one that threatens you, and I worry that you are taking it personally.) — HTGS (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose This would change the scope of the article and require a complete rewrite. Dimadick (talk) 08:12, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, indeed. The article is based on a false premise and a highly exaggerated distortion, and the only tangible fact is the ratio of male to female editors and biographies. All else is conjecture and highly opinionated assumptions. The article presents "male bias" as something pandemic to Wikipedia, when in reality, everyone has been subjected to unfriendly talk at times, both male and female editors. It's like writing an article whose title is The many faults of Joe Smith, where no one is allowed to question this, or include, or discuss, the good qualities of Joe Smith. We have a very serious POV issue to deal with. Help would be nice. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , What would change in the scope of the article? As I explain in my reply to Walrasiad below, the article covers at least three different things that are (according to some) all related. It will continue to make sense to keep them together in one article. I agree a rewrite would be needed, but I think that is needed regardless of what title we end up using, to make the article accurately reflect the terminology used in its sources. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 06:25, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Support - I think the proposed new title is definitely snappier and probably more accurate per WP:CRITERIA. However we cannot simply compare Google hits because the algorithm used to count them is wildly, wildly inaccurate - typically it miscounts the number of results by as much as a factor of ten or more. The only way to get an accurate count out of Google is to page to the last page of the results, which is typically not possible on the main search tool as the number of hits is more than what the maximum number of pages can hold. GScholar counts are normally better. Checking on GScholar I get 229 hits for "Wikipedia gender gap", 17 hits for "Wikipedia gender bias" and 70 hits for "Gender bias on Wikipedia". "Gender Gap" looks more likely to be the common name than the present title based on this. FOARP (talk) 15:08, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Comment Oppose - Initially inclined to oppose. What I understand as "gender bias" refers to the result, not the cause. In other words that the resulting information has a gender-bias, possibly caused by a lack of editors, coverage, etc. And that seems an accurate way to describe the result. Information is biased or unbiased, it is not "gapped", although a gap may be the cause of the bias. But I will suspend my vote since I realize some people here understand and use the term "bias" differently. Walrasiad (talk) 03:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for asking such a good question. This article is about at least three different things: Thing #1 is "Wikipedia editors are mostly male." This fact isn't about information on Wikipedia at all, and it's overwhelmingly referred to in the literature as simply "the gender gap". Where bias comes into this is when you start to ask why "Wikipedia editors are mostly male", and one of the answers that's sometimes given is that there is bias within Wikipedia and/or in society that makes men more likely to edit than women. In this context, bias is a cause rather than a result.
 * Thing #2 is "Wikipedia biographies are mostly biographies of men". This is also, confusingly, often referred to as "the gender gap." There are different points of view about whether this fact means that Wikipedia presents a biased perspective to its readers. There are also different points of view about whether this fact is just an innocent fact or whether it must have been caused by sexism somewhere along the line.
 * Thing #3 is "If you look at a given Wikipedia article, sometimes you'll see that it covers the topic in a way that's biased against women." This phenomenon is generally referred to as gender bias, not a gender gap.
 * When people talking about thing #2 and #3, what they often say is that it's caused by thing #1. So thing #1, the gender gap in editor participation, is (according to some) both a result of gender bias and a cause of gender bias. Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 06:19, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * If #3 is the point - which it seems to me that it is, or should be - the rest are just potential explanations of it. I can also say that, say, Wikipedia articles exhibit an "Anglo-American bias".  This could be because of a "geographic gap", in that contributors are mostly from English-speaking industrialized countries, and there are comparatively few from the global south, as it were.  To use your breakdown:
 * #1 - Wikipedia policies about using English-language RS, published in Anglo-American sphere, tends to exclude non-English sources, or sources which may not fit the RS criteria, like primary chronicles and oral traditions, which plays against contributions from the global south. Or "common-name" policies which in effect mean common in Anglo-American publications, and not common outside. Edit conflicts and talk discussions also tend to favor native speakers and disfavor those unable to articulate their points as well in the English language, who just may give up more readily.
 * #2 - Wikipedia biographies are mostly biographies of Anglo-Americans. Call it a geographic gap again if you'd like.
 * #3 - Wikipedia covers topics from an Anglo-American view and lacks viewpoints from the global south. Call this "Anglo-American bias".
 * It is the result - #3 - that seems to me to be the most important part - that "Anglo-American bias" exists in Wikipedia. A "geographic gap" in editors may explain how we got to #3.  But the topic of interest or concern is the stilted result. Similarly "gender bias" in the result seems to me to be the topic of interest and concern. The "gender gap" in editors is an important explanation of it, but does not necessarily explain it full. There may be other things (e.g. use of sources, or how edit conflicts are resolved), that may contribute to gender bias and are not necessarily reducible to imbalance in sheer number of editors. Walrasiad (talk) 15:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I don't think it's helpful to use Anglo-American bias as an analogy here. The main concern of this article by content is clearly #1 and #2 at the moment, and it's only the misleading title that has lead some people to see this article as pertaining primarily to #3. (To see how difficult any talk of point 3 is, see the section on Non-biographical gender disparities in content.) I also think it's a clearer article, and a more neutral one, if it addresses the clearly addressable fact of lower female representation, then treats the disparity in women's subjects or a bias against women in articles as a potential outcome. This seems to be a less controversial, and easier-to-pin-down approach (for instance, what are women's subjects?). — HTGS (talk) 23:16, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose. It's both a gender gap and a gender bias. Sources say the gap considerably concerns gender bias. Gender Roamer (talk) 20:34, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * The select group of sources rely heavily on the male to female ratio, but they have yet to substantiate the subjective idea of "bias". In light of the fact that there are thousands of women who have no problems editing here at Wikipedia, all the conjecture pales in significance. For more than five years, Wikipedia has been posting banners in an attempt to close this gender gap and increase the number of artilces about women and female editors. It hasn't even begun to happen. To write it all off as to do with "male bias" is rather sophomoric, is in itself a form of anti-male bias, not to mention hypocrisy. It's a bit disappointing to see Wikipedia editors running around in a circle chasing their own tales. I'm sure the enemies of Wikipedia, and there are many, esp in academic and publishing circles, are having a good laugh. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:09, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Gender Roamer (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose The topic is about gender bias on Wikipedia. It is very much about a bias, not a gap. The reliable sources are quite clear on that. They are substantive and quite clear sources and Gwillhickers is wrong, period. Honestly, reading this talk page is tiring, because the POV pushing to try and tear down the article is such a waste of time for everyone else to have to deal with. Especially the whining about how this affects men and I say that as a man. Silver  seren C 00:37, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To be clear, you think the current introductory sentence is inaccurate then? — HTGS (talk) 01:11, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I think having alternative names in the lede sentence is fine, but the main topic is very clearly on a gender bias. Though I do have issues with the term gap in general, as it is a very narrow term referring to the article gender breakdown, when the subject of this article is broader than that. So it isn't directly an alternative name, but the name of a subtopic also discussed in this article. Silver  seren C 01:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * To quote: [The gender bias or gap] refers to the fact that Wikipedia contributors are mostly male, that relatively few biographies on Wikipedia are about women, and that topics of interest to women are less well-covered. This sentence could just as easily describe a gap, or a bias. — HTGS (talk) 01:57, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose gap and bias are not synonymous, one may be the product of the other but they should not be conflated. Agree with Silver seren above. Smirkybec (talk) 09:24, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose as the two subjects are not the same. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:29, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, the conjecture is really starting to pile high, while several points continue to be ignored. We simply can't say the sources say so, because as pointed out they are biased in of themselves and speak in a general and obtuse capacity, and refer to men as one great big unified blob. That is sexist, not to mention a glaring hypocrisy.  The name of the article is 'Gender bias..', yet the only thing that attempts to substantiate this idea is the male to female ratio, which, once again, is easily explained. This article is not the only one which has presented a slanted or distorted view by referring to sources. Women, compared to men, are simply not interested nearly as much in writing about History, or articles about women. The number of male editors, compared to women is staggering.  Also, at least 90% of the history books out there, new and old, are written by men - and please don't hand me the idea that women are somehow prevented by men to write and publish also. There are simply too many female historians to put that misguided notion to rest. Also, there are not near as many famous women as there are famous men in history, even today, which also explains the greater number of articles about men. "Bias" strikes again? Ridiculous. It has been repeatedly asked that we show examples of male bias, in an article, or on Talk pages. It has been asked that we show one example of a male editor who has been banned for attacking a women editor because she's a women. Not one single example has been presented on this Talk page. If this problem is such that warrants such a broad brushed article, where are the examples? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "We simply can't say the sources say so, because as pointed out they are biased in of themselves and speak in a general and obtuse capacity, and refer to men as one great big unified blob. That is sexist, not to mention a glaring hypocrisy."
 * This is POV-pushing. You're just claiming all reliable sources are biased because they don't agree with your opinion on the subject. I would have expected an experienced editor such as yourself to understand that your opinion is irrelevant. Silver  seren C 21:38, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, the gender gap can be "easily explained" by your opinion of how Wikipedia and history function. Do you have reliable sources that discuss your opinion as it relates to Wikipedia? If so, that is actionable; if not, original research is nonactionable. That the sources used here are sexist (they're not) or biased (they're not) doesn't particularly matter - WP:BIASED sources are acceptable. Urve  (talk) 04:16, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No, I am not "just claiming". I have quoted from and addressed the sources numerous times. And attacking men as a group is no less sexist than attacking women as a group. This will make at least the fourth time I have been personally attacked. If you feel I'm wrong about something kindly explain why. And editor opinion is indeed relevant. Editors from the beginning have contested sources, esp when they are clearly biased, subjective and on one side of the fence, or who are simply not qualified to be stating opinions as facts. e.g.journalists, academics, etc.  There is no official list of reliable sources that editors must blindly subscribe to -- editors decide when a consensus has been established, and it would seem that "an experienced editor such as yourself" should have known this by now. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:47, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't dismiss my considered comments as "conjecture". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose narrowing the scope of the article and therefore also oppose moving the article to a title that would describe a narrowed scope. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose changing the title or narrowing the scope. Bias, gaps and dispartity are not the same things, content and editors are not the same thing. This article needs to explain how each are different, how they are linked, how those gaps biases and disparities manifest in Wikidpedia, and how they recreate and reflect structural inequalities more widely. We should also improve the coverage of efforts being made.  Recruiting more female editors is not the same as getting more biographies of women written. Women can edit on any subject as can men. Male editors writing biographies of women would quickly make the gap in biography coverage stats disappear.Melissa Highton (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please don't dismiss my considered comments as "conjecture". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose narrowing the scope of the article and therefore also oppose moving the article to a title that would describe a narrowed scope. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose changing the title or narrowing the scope. Bias, gaps and dispartity are not the same things, content and editors are not the same thing. This article needs to explain how each are different, how they are linked, how those gaps biases and disparities manifest in Wikidpedia, and how they recreate and reflect structural inequalities more widely. We should also improve the coverage of efforts being made.  Recruiting more female editors is not the same as getting more biographies of women written. Women can edit on any subject as can men. Male editors writing biographies of women would quickly make the gap in biography coverage stats disappear.Melissa Highton (talk) 15:51, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Time for a WP:SNOW close? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree. Not many people want to entertain anything but one view. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * WP:SNOW doesn't apply here, but yes, it might be time for an uninvolved party to close discussions. — HTGS (talk) 05:20, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Some additional sources
Some sources for those who would like to review and add; will probably come back when I have time, but any help would be nice. Also just a note to self to check whether these links are the most up to date (I think the last one isn't). Haven't checked if these are already included or not. Urve (talk) 04:47, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "Bridging the Gender Gap: A Report on Indian Language Wikimedia Communities" -- discusses feelings of editor safety among other things
 * -- discussion is mostly on indigenous ways of knowing, but includes some commentary about women editor value - such as saying that women editors are more likely to write about women; also takes pains to assuage some of the above concerns about there being some notion that the bias is conscious (they say it's unintended)
 * -- possible solutions
 * -- theoretical considerations for why the gap exists, also some concrete examples (eg, American women sociologists)
 * Is Wikipedia succeeding in reducing gender bias? Assessing changes in gender bias in Wikipedia using word embeddings -- gender bias over time (lower), lexical data interpretation
 * Reverting Hegemonic Ideology: Research Librarians and Information Professionals as "Critical Editors" of Wikipedia -- some criticism of WiR as insufficiently able to grapple with other content gaps; probably not appropriate for this article (deals more with people of color being glossed over in the initiative than women per se) but worth considering


 * Glad to see you intend to improve the article. Another good place to find relevant information is Gender gap on Meta, especially the section on Research. I've added a tag under further reading. On Women in Red, you will also find links to pertinent articles under Press and Research.--Ipigott (talk) 12:42, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh! Wonderful, thank you. I had no idea this existed. Will be really helpful. Urve  (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I was told that the article is not sexist towards men, and that most male editors are not part of this gender bias problem. Do any of the sources, including these new ones, make it clear that the majority of male editors at Wikipedia are not part of this gender bias problem at Wikipedia? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:11, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * why don't you read them and find out? Smirkybec (talk) 21:13, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I have been, and have even quoted from some of them, but this was stuffed into a collapsed box and was branded "unproductive". So far the sources promote the idea that gender bias is the cause of the gender gap. All I am asking is whether anyone knows if there is at least one source that makes it clear that the greater majority of male editors at Wikipedia are not part of this gender bias problem that is somehow preventing women from creating articles about women. If we can make this more clear, either way, the article would be greatly improved. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Re your attitude that it is necessary to find sources explicitly saying that "the majority of male editors are not part of this problem", see NotAllMen, and particularly the line "The phrase has been reappropriated by feminists and turned into a meme meant to parody its pervasiveness and bad faith." —David Eppstein (talk) 22:33, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Stating the obvious is unnecessary; we can assume that our readers are competent enough to know that if the article does not say "most men are part of the problem" that it's not true. But yes. "But it is important to note that the Wikipedia bias is not intentional in itself but is an unintended consequence of its radical inclusion" from Kristiani - they say it's about policies. If you want a source that explicitly says most men aren't problematic, write it yourself and get it published. Urve  (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Additional source:. This makes me start to wonder about article scope -- should it be about Wikipedia as a whole when most sources (that I have access to at least) are about English WP? I think it should be about the entire project but our reliance on en-WP examples makes me wonder. Food for thought for a future discussion at least. Urve (talk) 23:10, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Eppstein, please get control of the personal attacks and your attitude that seems to assume I am attempting to promote an untruth. I was just asking if there was a source that makes things more clear as to the magnitude and extent of this gender bias among male editors here at Wikipedia. Apparently you have no interest in making this idea clear for our readers. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * What personal attacks? I described the typical behavior of sea lions. If you don't want to be thought of as a sea lion, you might try not spouting sea lion clichés all over the discussion. A hint: "I was just asking" is another one of those clichés. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Urve, The article does not make it "obvious" that most male editors at Wikipedia are not the problem. As pointed out several times, the article speaks in general tones, relies heavily on a ratio, as do the sources, simply refers to "gender bias" and then carries on about this big gap in the ratio of articles about men and women. Your advice that I go out and write my own source, as if that would actually fly around here, seems to indicate that you're simply trying to blow off inconvenient questions in your apparent attempt to avoid the issue entirely. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:05, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Other editors here are trying to base the article on what has been published in reliable sources. If you don't have any sources to offer, and instead continue to argue that the article should be based on your own opinion of what the sources should have said instead of what they actually do say, then it appears unlikely that your contributions to the discussion will be productive. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:28, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not an opinion that the article, including the lede, doesn't clarify the magnitude or extent of this alleged gender bias among male editors here at Wikipedia, which is assumed by the sources, i.e. journalists, academics and "studies" which set out to find what they've assumed from the start, mostly, to have prevented women editors from creating articles about women. This is why I was inquiring as to what the sources may have said in that regard, especially since I was told by an editor who disagreed with my overall position, that the gender issue didn't involve most male editors. The idea of an unfriendly Talk page environment is not at all confined to the idea that it has targeted only women, as is glaringly evident on this Talk page and throughout Wikipedia. Yet men overall are not discouraged nearly in the same capacity that women are, according to this article. This more than suggests that women can't cope, which I don't believe is true – but this is what our so called reliable sources are saying when they claim women are discouraged from editing at Wikipedia primarily because of unfriendly Talk page episodes. The attempt to just brush all this off in the manner you've demonstrated, with no viable discussion about the the extent of this gender bias, with no desire to further look into the sources on that note, seems to have revealed its own bias. The fact that the threads involving quotes from the article and the sources have been quickly removed from this Talk page more than confirms this idea. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:18, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * "set out to find what they've assumed from the start": projection much? —David Eppstein (talk) 19:47, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sadly this is the nature of most studies, especially when they'll lose their grant/funding if they don't prove what they've claimed to have been a problem. Nothing new. And the idea of an "unconscious bias" is a two-way street. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * u|Urve — The other day, on the 20th, you claimed that, "I sincerely doubt that anyone here believes "most of the male editors" are responsible for anything, ... 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." I'm hoping that your view here is based on the sources so we can include this important perspective in the article. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:14, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I thought you said before that you were going to bow out from this article and talk page? You're being increasingly disruptive to general conversation and actual article improvement, not to mention POV-pushing of your own personal opinions on the subject matter and your complaints about the dozens of sources that make statements you personally don't agree with. This is seriously approaching an AN/I thread intervention point. Silver  seren C 22:25, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is incessant badgering like this that makes women uncomfortable contributing to Wikipedia. Uninterested in entertaining your disruption. Urve  (talk) 22:46, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've said I was going to bow out, but Urve brought up a claim that needed to be addressed. I've not resorted to personal attacks, smug remarks and am only asking fair questions about the sources. Now I'm being accused of being "disruptive" and for "badgering"?? It is only being asked, sources permitting, that Urve's claim be represented in the article, again, for the sake of clarity and article improvement. If you don't want to entertain that idea no one is forcing you. I'll respond further if some one wants to continue with the idea, if not, indeed there's no point for me to continue. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:08, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Top Paragraph
I clarified the opening paragraph because the current bias is clearly against women and should be stated as such. If or when this changes in the future then it should be moved further down in the article to a history section. TheKevlar 06:01, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
 * As it stands the opening sentence is a little unclear. Does it mean that 'Wikipedia contributors nominate women's biographies for deletion at a greater rate than for men, and incidentally, Wikipedia contributors are mostly men.' Or is it saying that the 'Male Wikipedia contributors are more likely to nominate women's articles for deletion than men's articles, whilst female contributors are not, and Wikipedia contributors are mostly men'? Or something else? LastDodo (talk) 09:33, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Reference
Came upon this resource in my research:
 * Reagle JM, Koerner JL. Wikipedia @ 20 : Stories of an Incomplete Revolution . The MIT Press; 2020.

"We argue that press coverage of Wikipedia can be roughly divided into four periods. We have named each period after a major theme: “Authorial Anarchy” (2001–2004/2005); “Wikiality” (2005–2008); “Bias” (2011–2017); and “Good Cop” (2018–present). We note upfront that these categories are not rigid and that themes and trends from one period can and often do carry over into others. But the overall progression reveals how the dynamic relationship between Wikipedia and the press has changed since its inception and might provide further insight into how the press and Wikipedia will ccontinue to interact with each other in the internet’s knowledge ecosystem(Reagle and Koerner 2020)."

What's important to note her is that there IS a problem, but measures have been done to address it. Not taking sides but I also acknowledge that the era of "Bias" cannot be rigidly contained within 2011-2017. There will always bias in everything, the point is if we are making a conscious effort to rectify it.Caudaequinas (talk) 20:25, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
 * The book is entirely open access and available here. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Chapter 21: Wikipedia Has a Bias Problem by Jackie Koerner. Terjen (talk) 06:36, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Speaking of gender bias on wikipedia...
Look at the bottom of this page that lists the sections this article is in. That's quite a lot of sections with the words "women" and "feminism" in them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.150.125.128 (talk) 00:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 15 October 2018 and 12 December 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Isabelmadison.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

'discrimination' in math and science, is that the root topic?
Or is the bias of the interest in the feild at a critical development time?

One should note an encycpedia has a major bent towards science and math topics and articles in both editors and readers. Practical science and technology articles dominate because those tend to be where the most easily accessed and understood source materials are at that are not beyond google and a pay wall.

'Concise encyclopedia of polymer science and engineering' authors is a highly rated and revied editor.

Example specialized sites like Github has a bias first toward people fluent in code because most materials are code and open source code projects by a site built on open source code tools. The male bias is subsequent to the bias within the reach of the subject. Spatial visual parts of the brain and a good number of the structure of the brain related math skills are most likely involved in math gender biased by biology.

Complexity does have some attraction to boys 9-16.

https://daily.jstor.org/how-computer-science-became-a-boys-club/

If it is unconsosoue bias or selection bias is a highly debatable topic with good points on both sides of the argument, but the number of people trained in STEM is clearly gender biased worldwide for decades.

The Science of Sex Differences in Science and Mathematics

Diane F. Halpern,1 Camilla P. Benbow,2 David C. Geary,3 Ruben C. Gur,4 Janet Shibley Hyde,5 and Morton Ann Gernsbacher5

Ceci, S. J., Williams, W. M., Barnett, S. M. (2009). Women’s underrepresentation in science: Sociocultural and biological considerations. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 218–261. doi:10.1037/a0014412

Editing STEM articles usually only interests members of the population casually connected to the field. There are in the few experts in field or the armature who spots a significant misunderstand driven by repetition in poor quality sources. If it is causation or causality cannot be spotted in a population study of a select set of articles with a filter as described it is another sort of social science statistic. The topic is also fraught with observation effort bias.

The same young Males also have a bent towards not hiding Obsessive Compulsive behaviors along with anti social behaviors, the editors on the articles I monitor are quite public in maintaining tortured language in a OC way on what should be a cussory jumping off point for information gathering.

https://psychcentral.com/blog/ocd-reflections/2016/06/ocd-and-crime#1 Loopbackdude (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 28 January 2019 and 25 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Yzhou19.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

This article should not be associated with 'discrimination'
This article cites male-female differences as "discrimination"! This is absurd. Given that society has always been patriarchal (and many societies arouond the world still are, and always will be patriarchal, such as Muslim, Jewish, and Christian societies), there are obviously going to be more articles about notable men throughout history than women. That is clearly not "discrimination" of any kind.

As for the gender difference of Wikipedia editors, how can that possibly be considered "discrimination" when editors freely take it upon themselves to sign up to Wikipedia and contribute? To believe that the male bias is "discriminatory", one would have to believe that men and women have identical brains and are equally likely to want to undertake every type of endeavor, a notion which not only goes against common sense, but is scientifically invalid, and would be introducing pseudo-scientific political agendas to Wikipedia. Grand Dizzy (talk) 14:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * The article doesn't characterize it as "discrimination". I presume you're just talking about the presence of the discrimination sidebar? If so, I tend to agree that it should be removed, if for no other reason than this article isn't linked from it (and thus isn't part of that series). &mdash; Rhododendrites  talk \\ 15:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Referencing the gender gap on Wikipedia as anything relating the fault of men, discrimination, or the fault of Wikipedia is absurd, considering that women make up half the world population, and could easily increase their share of editorship if they wanted to. EytanMelech (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Not sure why it took so long for this to be done, but I've removed the sidebar for this reason in particular. ^ - Fluddulation! 14:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with removing the discrimination sidebar. However, the OP's claim that it's "absurd" to say that discrimination is a factor in the under-representation of women among editors is itself absurd. Of course no one blocks women from signing up as editors. That's not the point. Discrimination does not just mean that. Discrimination also works in subtler ways, such as allowing a subculture to flourish that discourages women. Wikipedia subculture is tolerant of overly combative or insulting behavior in discussions. (Official Wikipedia policies such as WP:BITE, WP:NPA, and WP:CIV discourage this, but often those policies are not enforced.) Some editors also seem to enjoy using sexual banter and sexual profanities. It's not surprising that many women find this unpleasant. It's not pseudoscience to say that in most societies women have been socialized somewhat differently from men, who are more likely to grow up thinking that it's cool (and masculine) to engage in aggressive behavior, sexual banter, etc. Many women don't let that bother them, and like editing Wikipedia. However, it's not surprising that some women might feel that they have to deal with enough obnoxious behavior by men in their daily life that they don't need to join a voluntary project where they'll encounter more of it. NightHeron (talk) 18:06, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually meant to respond to Rhododendrites' response in regards to the sidebar needing to be removed since it doesn't include this article, but I very much agree with this ^^. I think it's important to acknowledge the gender gap and issues that turn away women from editing on Wikipedia, and to remain aware of them when editing and collaborating on here to discourage the behavior that turns them away. The unpleasant behavior described by Heron above alongside what's described in the article is indeed discrimination, just not quite as blunt or recognized. - Fluddulation! 18:44, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 21 February 2022

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. (non-admin closure)  NW1223  &lt; Howl at me &bull; My hunts &gt; 06:04, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Gender bias on Wikipedia → Sexism on Wikipedia – 'Sexism' is the most commonly used word to describe gender bias. WP:COMMONNAME applies here.

Meet the Editors Fighting Racism and Sexism on Wikipedia

Addressing Racism and Sexism in Wikipedia: A Panel Discussion Desertambition (talk) 23:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose: This article discusses aspects of Wikipedia that are better reflected by the term "gender bias" than "sexism". For example, Wagner et al finding that gender inequality manifests on Wikipedia in different ways which could be explained by reasons such as editors writing about their own gender more, or that men are more likely to create articles about men, or that external sources make women less visible. This article also talks about things such as there being less recognition given to female scholars in the past, female readers of Wikipedia being less likely to contribute to editing, etc. Wikipedia also reflects wider cultural behaviour in the present and past as Wikipedia can only reflect what has been published in scholarship. If there are less women in a certain field then there will be less women scholars publishing articles which therefore leads to Wikipedia citing more men in that subject than women. That phenomenon is better referred to as "gender bias on Wikipedia" rather than "sexism on Wikipedia", as the later term prescribes a much more active role for Wikipedia than is necessarily warranted in all situations. --Spekkios (talk) 23:55, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Sexism' encompasses those topics entirely. I do not see much evidence suggesting 'gender bias' is the preferred WP:COMMONNAME. While some Wikipedians may prefer 'gender bias', it does not accurately reflect how these subjects are talked about by reliable English language sources. Desertambition (talk) 00:20, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Common name is a weak argument when the subject is better described by one term over another. We don't use the term "Math" when the better term is "Mathematics". "Gender bias" is a better description for women favouring certain scholarship over others for example. --Spekkios (talk) 00:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 'Sexism' is absolutely the favored word for gender bias, common name or not. It is the preferred word used by reliable sources. I have already linked two sources specifically about Wikipedia and Sexism (aka gender bias).


 * Wikipedia's Hostility to Women

Wikimedia gave out $250,000 in funding to proposals addressing the gender gap this spring, creating editor meetups with childcare and hosting workshops for admins who want to understand how sexism affects the site.


 * Sexism at Wikipedia feeds off the sexism in the media


 * Wikipedia Knows It Has a Sexism Problem... And Is Trying Surprisingly Hard to Fix It


 * We're all to blame for Wikipedia's huge sexism problem


 * Sexism on Wikipedia: Why the #YesAllWomen Edits Matter


 * These sources are absolutely relevant to the discussion. The discussion is almost always talked about as 'Sexism on Wikipedia' not 'Gender Bias on Wikipedia' even though the sources talking about sexism are in fact talking about gender bias as well because they are one and the same. Desertambition (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree that sexism and gender bias are the same thing. Not citing female scholars because they are female is better described by the term "sexist", while Wikipedia reflecting the lack of female scholarship in a certain subject is better reflected by the term "gender bias". "Sexism" implies agency on Wikipedia's part, which isn't always the case. --Spekkios (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your definition of sexism is inaccurate. Cannot find a definition that implies agency, can you cite where you found that information? If you just feel that way, it does not meet policy criteria. Desertambition (talk) 00:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Should be fairly WP:COMMONSENSE. Calling something "sexist" implies intent on behalf of the one being accused. --Spekkios (talk) 03:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If that is the case then you should be able to provide sources rather than passive aggressively dismissing my legitimate points. Reliable sources do not reflect your clearly subjective opinion. There is not reason to completely ignore WP:COMMONNAME. Desertambition (talk) 05:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree as I have already stated. --Spekkios (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Proposed new name is too narrow. This article does and should cover disparate treatment occurring for all reasons, not merely because of some Wikipedia editors' sexism. Noting also that this is the fourth proposed move for this article; the previous three did not attract a consensus. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:37, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Why do almost all articles on this subject use 'sexism' and not 'gender bias'? Desertambition (talk) 00:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Because they're published in media that exist to attract reader attention, and because it attracts more attention to point fingers at people for being sexist than it does to go over all the other reasons (on top of the actual sexism that also exists) for our coverage to be unbalanced? We, on the other hand, exist to be informative rather than to attract attention. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:47, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * It seems bad practice to dismiss reputable sources because you personally think they're just publishing clickbait. We should pay attention to what reliable, English language sources say about the issue. It is infrequently described as "gender bias" and almost always described as "sexism". Desertambition (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:PRECISE. "Sexism" and "gender bias" are not interchangeable terms. According to our article on sexism, "Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on one's sex or gender.". That's not primarily what this article is about. Using the term "sexism" in the title of this article would be less accurate and potentially confusing. Rreagan007 (talk) 01:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Surely that means we should create an article on Sexism on Wikipedia then, if this article does not encompass that. Desertambition (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Much of the gender bias discussed in the article is not due to sexism on Wikipedia, but rather to sexism off Wikipedia, in society at large and in the sources. NightHeron (talk) 01:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Reliable, English language sources actually say the opposite of that. So I am not sure where you are getting your information. Desertambition (talk) 01:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not denying that there's plenty of sexism on Wikipedia, as discussed in this article. But in the section on "Causes", of the 9 causes cited by Sue Gardner the first 4 are not about sexism on Wikipedia. Often sexism on Wikipedia is only part of the explanation. For example, the discussion in this article of the case of Donna Strickland is incomplete. The decision to delete the article on the grounds of non-notability later caused Wikipedia much embarrassment when she won the Nobel Prize. But one might ask why the University of Waterloo had not promoted her from associate professor to full professor. She would have had a lot more notability and her BLP presumably would not have been deleted if it hadn't been for sexism in society at large. NightHeron (talk) 02:06, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * If you're not denying it then I see no reason why it can't be the title of the article, or at least bolded and mentioned in the MOS:LEAD. Sue Gardner is not the arbiter of sexism on Wikipedia, and plenty of reliable sources have come out since she made those statements explicitly talking about 'Sexism on Wikipedia', not 'Gender Bias on Wikipedia'. I think we are going a bit off topic with that discussion but I think it is embarrassing for Wikipedia that she did not have an article. Notability is entirely subjective and I see no reason why she would not be notable enough for an article, even without a nobel prize. Desertambition (talk) 02:40, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The common usage of "sexism" is narrower, and does not encompass the problem of gender bias. The title "sexism on Wikipedia" suggests that if we could only convince certain editors not to be sexist, the problem would go away. It wouldn't. For example, right now experienced editors almost never get sanctioned for behaving aggressively toward newbies, despite the fact that it's against Wikipedia policy (WP:BITE) to behave that way. Often women and people of color tend to be especially discouraged when they experience that aggression, perhaps because they already have to deal with enough in their lives that they don't want more of it when helping a volunteer project. Sue Gardner alludes to this problem. It's not necessarily sexism by the experienced editors, who often don't even know the gender of the newbies they're treating abusively. NightHeron (talk) 10:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment "Notability is entirely subjective and I see no reason why she would not be notable enough for an article, even without a nobel prize. " I agree that notability is subjective, but Wikipedia keeps inventing new, arbitrary ways to determine it, mostly as an excuse to delete articles. Over the last decade or so, I have seen detailed articles on literature, music, film, and comics get deleted, with the typical excuse that they are "craft". Meanwhile we keep getting articles on athletes with minimal achievements, and politicians whose sole achievement in life was getting elected or appointed. It depresses me, but there is little that I can do on the matter. Dimadick (talk) 06:43, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Oppose I think its more common to describe in a formal context with "gender bias" than "sexism". This also discusses how many females compared with males contribute which probably has nothing to do with sexsism.  Crouch, Swale  ( talk ) 11:46, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose "Bias" is an objective, demonstrable fact. "Sexism" is an imputed motive for that fact that cannot be objectively demonstrated. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose The proposed move actually violates the WP:COMMONNAME guidance that it invokes. WP:COMMONNAME states, Ambiguous or inaccurate names ... are often avoided even though they may be more frequently used by reliable sources. "Sexism" is likely to be misleading and create an inaccurate impression in many readers, who take it to mean something overt, explicit, and deliberate, rather than pervasive or institutional. Google Scholar finds over 6,000 papers that mention Wikipedia and gender bias but not sexism, so in a corpus that's probably less sensationalist on average than the news, gender bias looks to be a pretty common term itself. Of the sources cited above, Wired says sexism in the headline but bias and gender gap in the actual text, the YouTube recording of a panel discussion has sexism in the title and gender bias in the description, The Atlantic uses gender bias in its subhead, Quartz does so in the main text (e.g., Her omission from the internet’s encyclopedia prompted accusations of gender bias at Wikipedia...), KQED says Sexism in the headline but gender bias and gender gap in the actual text, the other Wired story has sexism only in the headline, and othersociologist.com appears to be a self-published source that uses both sexism and gender bias. Bearing in mind that headlines are not to be trusted, the listed sources do not amount to an argument for moving the article. XOR&#39;easter (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose That would misrepresent the overall subject in the question. SignificantPBD (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Common name only applies when the names in contention refer to the same topic. In this instance (and more generally, actually), . Gender bias, in this instance, refers primarily to the differential (biased) coverage of gendered topics. That is part of sexism, but sexism is a broader topic, and would hence require a broader scoped article. --Xurizuri (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I'm going to have to explain why I say sexism is broader, I just had a more detailed read over previous arguments which are saying the opposite (I know I should do that first but it's too late now). Firstly, I'm going to notify WP:FEM, WP:WOMEN and WP:GGTF about this conversation, because they're the experts on terminology here. I say it's wider because sexism isn't just interpersonal interactions. Sexism is also the broader societal forces that act on all of our lives. There's systemic sexism in WP's "rules of engagement"). It's sexist that there is a bias in gender, both because it arises through the forces of sexism (i.e., prejudice, discrimination, and the various ways women are discouraged from editing) and because it perpetuates sexism (makes various men seem more notable than women who are leagues more notable than they are; has a range of real-world effects). But bias is only one way that sexism arises and is reinforced. There's some argument to be made that this article, and some articles and research, also covers other aspects of sexism, but it is largely discussed in the context of and the . --Xurizuri (talk) 03:36, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * But a big difference between the common usage of sexism and gender bias is that the former implies intentionality. To call someone "sexist" is an insult, whereas to accuse them of gender bias is not necessarily an insult, because gender bias can occur for other reasons. A title sexism on Wikipedia suggests that overt sexism by Wikipedia editors is the main problem. But lack of adequate coverage of women is sometimes due not to sexism on Wikipedia but to policies such as WP:V that mean that if RS are ignoring a woman's contributions due to sexism in her field of work, then we have to ignore her also, and to aspects of the Wikipedia subculture, such as aggressive and competitive attitudes on talk-pages and ANI that discourage newcomers. NightHeron (talk) 10:21, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Layout
On 2020-10-06, moved the Further reading ahead of References with the edit summary of simply order. I am going to restore it to the accustomed order as per MOS:APPENDIX. I also note that Further reading followed References from its creation as a section August 2014 until October 2020. Peaceray (talk) 01:46, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Matched cohorts?
It's standard practice in sociology to perform this kind of comparison across matched cohorts:

Wikipedia's articles about women are less likely to be included, expanded, neutral, and detailed.

You're not going to find a matched female cohort for Moses, Jesus, Plato, Marx, Freud, Darwin, Archimedes, Newton, Einstein, or a fairly long list of illustrious/malodorous American presidents. Are we surprised if these articles are edited more often than the merely mortal?

Here's my own personal list of woman in science:

Katie Bouman — 1990; image deconvolution for astronomy Leslie Dewan — 1984; ambitious, but failed thorium cycle Joanna Rutkowska — 1981; computer security Maryam Mirzakhani — born 1977; Fields medal; died of breast cancer at age 40 Nergis Mavalvala — born 1968; LIGO, McAurthur grant Melanie Mitchell — born circa 1969; student of Douglas Hofstadter Daphne Koller — born 1968 Lisa Randall — born 1962; physicist Carol W. Greider — 1961; molecular biologist Sarit Kraus — born 1960; computer scientist; multiagent systems; negotiation Maiken Nedergaard — born circa 1959; glymphatic system Sophie Wilson — 1957; born Roger Wilson; ARM architecture Rebecca Bace — 1955–2017; computer security expert Ingrid Daubechies — 1954; wavelets; image compression Sheila Bird — born 1952; biostatistician Esther Dyson — 1951; not exactly the right list Sally Ride — born 1951; physicist Nancy Lynch — born 1948; logician Jocelyn Bell Burnell — born 1943; pulsars Helena Cronin — born 1942; Darwinism Beatrice Tinsley — 1941–1982; galactic evolution Barbara Liskov — born 1939; substitution principle Lynn Conway — 1938; VLSI demi-God Li Shuxian (physicist) — 1936 birth of husband; also Chinese activist Margaret Hamilton (software engineer) — 1936 Nancy Roman — 1925–2018; Mother Hubble Jean Bartik — 1924–2011; ENIAC programmer Beatrice Worsley — 1921–1972; first Canada woman CS PhD; studied under Turing Rosalind Franklin — 1920–1958 Katherine Johnson — born 1918; computerized celestial navigation Betty Holberton — 1917–2001; ENIAC programmer Grace Hopper — 1906–1992; PhD in computer science; COBOL Maria Goeppert-Mayer — 1906–1972 Barbara McClintock — 1902–1992; cytogenetics Grete Hermann — 1901–1984; one-upped von Neumann, no-one noticed Katharine Burr Blodgett — 1898–1979 Emmy Noether — 1882–1935 Lise Meitner — 1878–1968 Marie Curie — 1867–1934; nuclear physics Sofia Kovalevskaya — 1850-1891; analysis; tutored under Weierstrass Ada Lovelace — 1815–1852 Sophie Germain — 1776–1831 Elizabeth Fulhame — born c. 1750; published 1794 after 14 years of research Caroline Herschel — 1750–1848 Maria Sibylla Merian — 1647–1717 Trota of Salerno — 12th century Hypatia — born c. 350–370; died 415 CE

By no means a complete list, but there are some pretty kick-ass women in there. Find a group of men with similar accomplishment levels, and then compare edit frequencies across the matched groups.

It still won't correct for how women are (probably) more active in editing women (since women are more active in all things "inclusive") and that women naturally have a different editorial style, or that edit counts are kind of stupid in the first place, because they reward ADHD premature submitulation, which is disproportionately a male trait.

I really would like to care about this issue, but I look at the low quality of the statistics usually reported, and I quickly run away. Perhaps that's also a male trait. &mdash; MaxEnt 05:46, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Just to add a final thought, what actually passed through my brain concerning this (apparently) weak tea masquerading as statistics, was the film Super Size Me (2004) by Morgan Spurlock. It was supposed to demonstrate how dangerous it was to eat exclusively at McDonald's, but the whole thing was baked. You get funded for a project like this, you better have a big fat diseased liver to report in the final act. This was entirely guaranteed by the total amount of sugar he was going to consume, by never skipping a milkshake or Coke. His final intake: 30 lbs of sugar to 12 lbs of fat. At that level of caloric excess, that's a ludicrous ratio, guaranteed to make you sick. He'd have been way better off with 27 lbs of fat and 0 lbs of sugar (about the same total calories). The Inuit eat that kind of diet, and don't get nearly so sick. Are these low-grade statistics being cranked out in this domain to guarantee a big fat diseased liver of gender bias? Morgan did not try very hard to give McDonald's a fair milkshake. Maybe they didn't deserve a fair milkshake. Maybe men don't deserve a fair milkshake. But all the same, I can't milkshake my feeling that these statistics are similarly baked. &mdash; MaxEnt 05:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you have any specific suggestions for the article, backed up by sources? You might want to read WP:NOR and WP:NOTFORUM. NightHeron (talk) 10:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Sources? 165.234.101.96 (talk) 18:35, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Creating matched cohorts for non-notable people for a sociological study is obviously very different, statistically speaking. To try to create matched cohorts of notable people based on their "accomplishment levels" would be very difficult. Say you have a man and a woman who jointly won a Nobel Prize (that would be about as close as one could get for "accomplishment level"), yet there are so many other variables that might make one or other of them more or less "accomplished".  Maybe a more objective measure might be the 30-day pageview number, as long as we ignore people currently in the news.  Using the people mentioned by MaxEnt, Melanie Mitchell is on 1,204 pageviews (30 days), and Douglas Hofstadter 11,133. But she also studied under John Henry Holland on 1,355, which is much closer. So, perhaps one could compare people such as Mitchell and Holland. Any thoughts? Edwardx (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)