Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Innovation

New high performance team wear for cricket clubs - Steve Waugh & ONTHEGO Sports

Women4Wikipedia

By CollectiveAct - 20 February 2011 34

I am starting a local group for women to get together to support one another in editing Wikipedia. This is a grassroots campaign started by me (a local Canberra mother) which is part of a larger push to redress the gender imbalance in Wikipedia where less than 13% of contributors are women.

You can find out more about this at the Wikipedia Gendergap mailing list or at my web site Women4Wikipedia. My own particular take on the issue is that I’m not overly interested in debating the why’s but more interested in encouraging women to participate in Wikipedia by providing resources and a supportive environment.

I have started hosting Twitter Chats each Monday night 8pm AEST to discuss and network (use the hashtag #women4wikipedia). You can find the readings & past transcripts, news etc at http://women4wikipedia.net

So far we have interest from Laura who is looking for a Canberran woman with a keen interest in sports to help host her Wiki Academy at Canbera Uni and work on Wikipedia articles about Australian Women’s sport; Kath who is interested in improving Australian music/bands articles; & there has also been some interest shown from some locals in improving Wikipedia articles about Canberra topics.

So if you are a woman who might enjoy learning to contribute to Wikipedia (or already have) please contact me via email, attend the chat or join the Canberra Meetup Group so that we can network, share your work etc. We’re hoping to get at least one Womens Wikipedia Hackfest up and running by/around the Centenary of International Women’s Day on March 8.

What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments
34 Responses to
Women4Wikipedia
1
johnboy 11:55 am
20 Feb 11
#

While you’re there perhaps a certain website could be added to Canberra’s media section.

Report this comment

2
anonymoose 1:11 pm
20 Feb 11
#

I like the idea of a group of women being empowered and contributing to something but I suggest you chose something more constructive.

Wikipedia is one of the most unreliable sources of information and I don’t think trying to clean it up now will help.

I’ve made false modifications to it for years to test this and less than 10 have ever been noticed. Some of the data I provided in wiki articles has been quoted in other discussions about the topic

Report this comment

3
p1 1:26 pm
20 Feb 11
#

anonymoose said :

Wikipedia is one of the most unreliable sources of information and I don’t think trying to clean it up now will help.

Wikipedia is only a bad source of information when you don’t read it critically and check the sources offered (or not offered, as the case may be).

So basically, you choices for finding information about things on the net are:

– websites written by the people concerned (biased up the wazoo)
– news sites (usually not referenced at all)
– random sites by random nut jobs

Wiki at least usually offers a consensus position of various opinions out there. Of course, dick heads intentionally making it wrong doesn’t help.

I wonder if the 13% contribution by women has something to do with the ratio of men to women amongst bored nerds.

Report this comment

4
gospeedygo 1:39 pm
20 Feb 11
#

Except for the fact [citation needed] that the Wikipedia community is full of manchildren with aspergers and OCD. I suggest you look elsewhere ladies.

Report this comment

5
Skidbladnir 1:50 pm
20 Feb 11
#

anonymoose said :

Wikipedia is one of the most unreliable sources of information and I don’t think trying to clean it up now will help.

I’ve made false modifications to it for years to test this and less than 10 have ever been noticed. Some of the data I provided in wiki articles has been quoted in other discussions about the topic

So, you intentionally introduced false data into a free service, expected the kindness or willingness of a motivated stranger to correct and compensate for your deliberate act of vandalism, and are using the gullibility and trusting nature (ie: critical analysis and authoritative acceptance weaknesses) of yet another third party, namely the users, as an argument against the ENTIRETY of wikipedia.

You don’t blame Johnboy for the quality of the average RiotACT comment, nor use single comments as examples of the entire site’s failings, do you?

(By the way, edit tracking for new content has gotten a -lot- better recently…)

Report this comment

6
Kath 2:00 pm
20 Feb 11
#

anonymoose said :

Wikipedia is one of the most unreliable sources of information and I don’t think trying to clean it up now will help.

I’ve made false modifications to it for years to test this and less than 10 have ever been noticed. Some of the data I provided in wiki articles has been quoted in other discussions about the topic

Perhaps you could help by fixing the damage you’ve done, assuming that’s true? Good grief.

“I wouldn’t buy anything from Woolworths – I’ve been smearing e-coli on the fruit and veg for years, and they’ve hardly ever caught me…”?

Report this comment

7
John Moulis 2:35 pm
20 Feb 11
#

I echo the responses of other members in saying that Wikipedia is notoriously unreliable and seems to encourage cybervandalism of its information.

I was reading the entry on the Canberra 400 V8 motor race and was staggered at how easy it was to edit the entry. All you needed to do was click on the word Edit and all the information in that segment was displayed in a Word-style field which you could then edit any way you wanted to. You didn’t even have to sign into Wikipedia, just click Edit and it is open slather. As it turned out, the entry on the Canberra 400 had a mistake saying the Stanhope govt came to office in 2002. I amended it to the correct date, 2001.

As far as the OP’s complaint that only 13% of entries are by women, this should be something to be applauded, not deplored. The fact that women can detect a dodgy site and refuse to contribute to it is something they should be proud of.

The era of luminaries like Albert Einstein writing articles for Encyclopedia Britannica, and all entries being scrupulously checked for accuracy before going to print has long since gone in the Wikipedia age.

Report this comment

8
Auntyem 5:13 pm
20 Feb 11
#

I know there’s a website for Canberra women called Her Canberra. It has recently been developed to “provide a virtual community for local women”. Maybe you could contact the creators of this site to gain some local support for your enterprise.

http://www.hercanberra.com.au/

Good luck!

Report this comment

9
bd84 6:10 pm
20 Feb 11
#

You seriously have nothing better to do than worry about this? I think women should be proud that only 13% contribute..

Report this comment

10
astrojax 8:01 pm
20 Feb 11
#

testosterone has been implicated (by simon baron-cohen, among others) in aspergers/autism and there is also a higher incidence of this in geeks (and in silicone valley, where geeks inter-marry, sheesh!), so perhaps there is some prior rationale for the greater masculine incidence in wikipaedia (sorry, i spelt that correctly) editing – nonetheless, good luck in the quest! (being an anonymous on-line experience, though, how will you check gender? [ok, technically ‘sex’, i agree…]

Report this comment

11
LSWCHP 8:40 pm
20 Feb 11
#

anonymoose said :

Wikipedia is one of the most unreliable sources of information and I don’t think trying to clean it up now will help.

I’ve made false modifications to it for years to test this and less than 10 have ever been noticed. Some of the data I provided in wiki articles has been quoted in other discussions about the topic

I’m with Skid, but not as polite. You’re an idiot.

Report this comment

12
matt31221 8:48 pm
20 Feb 11
#

gospeedygo said :

Except for the fact [citation needed] that the Wikipedia community is full of manchildren with aspergers and OCD. I suggest you look elsewhere ladies.

Wow, great way to stereotype and put down people with aspergers and OCD. I may have OCD traits and I’d Love to show you what a ‘manchild’ is capable of if I ever find out who you are and meet you in public. F***wit.

Report this comment

13
Davo111 9:40 pm
20 Feb 11
#

anonymoose said :

Wikipedia is one of the most unreliable sources of information and I don’t think trying to clean it up now will help.

I’ve made false modifications to it for years to test this and less than 10 have ever been noticed. Some of the data I provided in wiki articles has been quoted in other discussions about the topic

wow, you’re an idiot. You have a cry about how wiki isnt reliable, then you vandalise pages to see if someone else will notice it in a wall of text? Why dont we burn down your house to prove that police can’t catch criminals – just to prove a point. is that ok?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia

There you go, have a read (assuming you have the mental capacity to)

Report this comment

14
grunge_hippy 9:44 pm
20 Feb 11
#

i think you need to get out more… really.

Report this comment

15
st 10:40 pm
20 Feb 11
#

To help your cause, isn’t it more appropriate to start writing/editing articles on Wikipedia rather than wasting time to start this group?

Report this comment

1 2 3

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2016 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.

Search across the site