Embedded Files
Have you ever considered who is editing or writing the Wikipedia articles that you read? Thought about the language used in the articles, or even the links within in it to other relevant pages? Have you ever considered that gender impacts Wikipedia? Sure, I have wondered before about who is writing the information that I sometimes rely on, those who create the pages to allow me easy access to a whole world of information, yet I have never truly stopped to consider the gender disparities that may exist on something like Wikipedia, let alone how deep they run, or how common it is.
“Editing for Equality: The Outcomes of the Art+Feminism Wikipedia Edit-a-thons," by Siân Evans, Jacqueline Mabey, and Michael Mandiberg details ArtFeminism (whos site is linked above) as one of the largest “edit-a-thons" in Wikipedia history. The ArtFeminism editing events severed as a series of collaborative events with artists, scholars, curators, librarians, and Wikipedians in an effort to edit and improve Wikipedia articles on women and the arts.
In 2015, over the course of the week near International Women’s Day, there were approximately 1500 participants in seventy-five locations in seventeen countries on four continents to edit these articles, and to create new ones. In fact, in that weekend nearly four hundred new articles were created, and over five hundred articles had improvements made on them. This event was much more substantial compared to its run in 2014 which drew six hundred participants in thirty-one locations who created 101 new articles and improved ninety.
What Does This Even Show Us/Teach Us?
So, what exactly does this event, and subsequently, this article teach us? To start with, something I have been oblivious to, and that is the fact that Wikipedia’s gender trouble is not new, it is actually well documented. A 2011 survey found that less than 10 percent of its contributors are female. While there is room for debate on why there is such a large gender gap, there is no debating the practical effect of this disparity. The lack of female participation means that Wikipedia’s content is skewed, and that there are systematic absences in a vital repository of information and knowledge. The article states, “new female editors are more likely than male editors to have their edits reverted” and that “where women are present in articles on Wikipedia, their lives and achievements are defined by the presence of men.” Men change women's writing from the modern day, and men define how women of the past are viewed, they are put into a lesser position simply because of their gender. A completely ridiculous archaic notion, and it doesn’t even end there!
Wikipedia articles that are about women are more likely to link to articles about men than vice versa, and the langue used for women is much more gendered – the articles will use words like “woman,” “female,” or “lady” frequently, whilst articles about men rarely use things like “man,” “masculine,” or “gentleman.” Articles for famous men tend to be longer, there are easier to find article about men, it centres around men. This is not to say that men have not been responsible for many things in history, in the arts, in politics, or in society as a whole. However, the leaning of Wikipedia towards males' mirrors societies disparities and inequalities that have been around for centuries. Female and male editors, as while as female and male's who have articles, should hold the same weight instead of favouring one gender
Is This Just On Wikipedia?
Gender disparities and bias exist all over society; gender inequalities act like a stifling presence in all aspects of society. It is not hard to find surveys or articles that detail this. Forbes once wrote about the gender imbalance in academia, pointing out that males tend to outnumber women at institutions, and they are more likely to reach senior positions, Canadian Art wrote about gender inequality in the Canadian art scene stating “across all sectors, women’s artistic and creative works receive significantly less public visibility (for example, productions or exhibitions) and recognition (awards) than those of men”, and my own rock’n’roll history course prioritized artists like Chuck Berry in the creation of the genre, never once mentioning people like Sister Rosetta Tharpe. The idea of gender inequalities, about prioritizing male voice, is not just limited to Wikipedia.
My Final Thoughts?
Events like this edit-a-thon are vital. They serve as a way of reinstituting, reinforcing, and educating people on narratives that are pushed aside or ignored. However, it does not just impact women. Any narrative, individual, or event that does not seemingly centre around a white cisgender heterosexual male, is one that has been at risk. Our history books need to be rewritten, those who teach us need to be more diverse, the world we live in needs to see people as people, existing on the plane, with an equal level of value and respect deserved, The ArtFeminism events for improving Wikipedia mark the change that needs to occur, and the people willing to put the work in. Changes are happening, and that fills me with elation, but we still have a long way to go.
Thanks for reading,
1-800-H011Y
P.S. Maybe check Wikipedia out for yourself and see what you can find. Who wrote or edited the page you're reading? What language are they using?
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse