It’s only 9:15 on a Monday morning and already I’ve received six emails suggesting that I blog about today’s New York Times article about the Gender Gap at Wikipedia. What really is there to say, that hasn’t been said before?
We know about how men’s self-confidence, geek machismo, and other dynamics of male-ism influence the proportion of men’s vs women’s activity on Wikipedia. And, the article makes us aware of the important problems created by women’s under-representation on Wikipedia, which include and are not limited to:
- Few entries on topics topics that primarily interest women (e.g., Colin Firth as Mr. Darcy, the politics of hair in the African American community)
- Few entries framed by and founded on a women’s / feminist perspective,
- Inadequate and sometimes no ‘web citation of record’ to inform people of the importance of a topic (i.e, “if it ain’t on Wikipedia by now, could it really be important?”).
Let’s be clear: There is no way for those of us who support Gender Parity, #SHEtalkTED, #morevoices, or ChangingtheRatio to get around this awkward truth about Wikipedia and women’s representation there:
Wikipedia is a self-nominating system. Anyone who wants to create an entry, and anyone who wants to revise an entry, can do that if she chooses. All she needs to do is find the time, sign up, log in, and go.
In other words, No one is keeping women off Wikipedia, but US. Ourselves. We are not shaping Wikipedia, because we are not volunteering there.
On Wikipedia, there are no formal barriers to women’s participation. Certainly, there are informal barriers — like the overwhelming maleness of the “objective” ‘voice’, and the likelihood that you can get harassed on Wikipedia by some mansplainer who insists on editing out your women’s perspective. But we can deal with this– every woman who blogs already deals with this.
Other informal barriers may be significant too. Speaking for myself, I’ve never created a Wikipage for anything, and I have a PhD (so obviously expertise isn’t the issue for me). A couple of times when I’ve thought “Hey, this Wikipedia entry needs some help” (like that page on a management concept where the person who created the page only cited herself, despite there being 100 other experts on the topic) I’ve felt daunted by the time commitment. I am totally flacktastically over-committed elsewhere, between community, school, politics, justice, and family efforts to which I donate time and mindshare. Blah blah blah… I’ve said this all before, and so have you. These obstacles are real.
And, I already spend too many hours in front of this computer — spending yet more time online crafting definitive entries on various under-served topics just doesn’t appeal to me, to be perfectly honest. And, I already do this a lot on my blogs.
However, when I look at this all more closely, I have to ask— is it that hard? Are the obstacles so great? No. And no. Maybe I, and you, just need to get more comfortable with the idea of making Wikipedia entries. Maybe with this one, we should just do it?
But why do it alone?
Why not create a WWHackathon — a Women’s Wikipedia Hackathon.
You’ve heard, of course, about “hackathons”, where hackers/ programmers get together and donate time and skill to a particular shared problem? Here’s the Wikipedia entry for Hackathon. Note that this entry was written by men.
Why not do something similar, but make it a Women’s Wikipedia Hackathon– a WWHackathon?
WWHackathons won’t require money, a location, sponsors, or a bake sale. They just require each of us, on our own time, and on our own topics of expertise and interest, to write a Wikepedia entry.
For the Women’s Wikipedia Hackathon:
- Each one of us commits to writing one entry. When we complete an entry, we tweet it to our followers using the tag #WikiWhack. At the very least, it can be your own bio. Or your own area of expertise.
I’ll commit to writing a Wikipedia entry about the WWHackathon, and I’ll do it by Feb. 8th.What will you commit to? Add your entry here, on IfWeRanTheWorld
- At programs that develop women writers, speakers and public intellectuals, such as the OpEd Project and the Women Action and Media fellowship program, each participant practices the skills and shares her voice by adding a Wikepedia entry?
- Each feminist organization, each women’s organization, and each women’s initiative commits to creating a Wikipedia entry for their group, along with appropriate bios of their leaders/key members, and more
- Women’s blogging conferences and women tech conferences hold one WWHackathon session, where women bring their laptops and write a Wikipage in the company of other women bloggers? I bet that Elisa, Lisa and Jori would be right on that….
- Progressive blogging conferences and blogging conferences for specific groups (e.g., BloggingWhileBrown, NetRoots Nation), hold a WWHackathon session, where women and men bring their laptops and write Wikipages that add a women’s and/or feminist perspective, in the company of other bloggers?
- “Regular” blogging conferences and tech conferences (like BlogWorld) hold a WWHackathon session, where women and men bring there laptops and write Wikipages that add a women’s and/or feminist perspective, in the company of other bloggers?
These are just a few tactics — what others should we add?
Put your ideas in the comments and/or add them to the Action Platform on IfWeRanTheWorld
“The big problem is that the current Wikipedia community is what came about by letting things develop naturally — trying to influence it in another direction is no longer the easiest path, and requires conscious effort to change.”
— Kat Walsh, longtime Wikipedia contributor & Wikimedia board member
I don’t necessarily agree with Ms. Walsh’s diagnosis, but I do agree with her response.
Changing the representation of women on Wikipedia requires conscious effort — yours, mine and ours. So let’s get to it.
And, while we’re at it, why don’t we add a definitive, feminist answer to a question on Quora?