Gender bias on Wikipedia on the online encyclopedia, and especially its English-language site ; que la Nature and quantity of ict happy is biased due to the fact That a dominant majorité of Wikipedia editors are male. It is Among the MOST frequent Criticisms of Wikipedia , and part of a more general criticism about systemic bias in Wikipedia . The Wikimedia Foundation , which runs Wikipedia, agrees with this criticism and has made an editing of Wikipedia.

Research findings

Surveys have indicated that between 8.5-16 percent of Wikipedia editors are female. [3] [4] [5] Consequently, Wikipedia has been criticized by some academics and journalists for a primary male contributors, [6] [7] [8] and for having fewer and extensive articles about women or topics important to women . The New York Times pointed out that Wikipedia’s female participation rate may be in line with other public opinion-leadership forums. [9] In 2009, a Wikimedia Foundation survey revealed that 6% of editors who made more than 500 edits were female; With the average male editor having twice as many edits. [10]

In 2010, United Nations University and UNU-MERIT jointly presented an overview of the results of a global Wikipedia survey. [11] A 30 January 2011, New York Times article cited this Wikimedia Foundation collaboration, which indicated that fewer than 13% of contributors to Wikipedia are women. Sue Gardner , the executive director of the foundation, said that the diversity of the encyclopedia was as good as it could be. The “obsessive-fact-loving realm”, the “hard-driving hacker crowd,” and the necessity to be “open to very difficult, high-conflict people,

In February 2011, The New York Times were followed up with a series of opinions on the subject under the banner, “Where Are the Women in Wikipedia?” [12] Susan C. Herring , a professor of information science and linguistics, said that she was not surprised by the Wikipedia contributors gender gap. Wikipedia article “talk” pages, where the content is discussed, is unappealing to many women, “if not outright intimidating.” [13] Joseph M. Reagle The reacted similarly, which means the combination of a “culture of hacker elitism,” combined with the disproportionate effect of high-conflict members on the community atmosphere, can make it unappealing. He said, ”

The International Journal of Communication published by Reagle and Lauren Rhue, which examines the coverage, gender representation, and article of the Wikipedia and the online Encyclopædia Britannica . They Concluded That Wikipedia Provided better coverage and follow items in general, That Wikipedia Typically HAS more items than are women Britannica in absolute terms, we aim Wikipedia Articles Were women more Likely to be missing items than we men relative to Britannica . That is, Wikipedia dominated Britannica in biographical coverage, but more so when it comes to men. Similarly, One might say that Britannica is more balanced in which it neglects to cover than Wikipedia. For both reference works, article length did not consistently differ by gender. [16]

In April 2011, the Wikimedia Foundation conducted its first semi-annual Wikipedia survey. Wikipedia editors are women. It also reported, “Contrary to the perception of some of the women’s editors’ feelings that they have been harassed, and very few feelings.” [17] However, an October 2011 paper at the International Symposium on Wikis and Open Collaboration found that Wikipedia may have “a culture that may be resistant to female participation”. [18]

A study published in 2014 found that there is also “internet skills gap” with regard to Wikipedia editors. The authors found that the “gap” exacerbates the gender gap among editors. [19]

During 2010-14, women made up 61% of participants of the college courses arranged by the Wiki Education Foundation program that included editing Wikipedia as part of the curriculum. Their contributions were found to shift from the Wikipedia happy pop culture and STEM social sciences and humanities Towards. [20]

A 2017 study found women participante That in year experiment by editing a Wikipedia-like website tended to view other editors as male, and to view Their responses have more critical than if the other editor Was gender-neutral . The study concluded that:

… visible female editors on Wikipedia and broader encouragement of the use of constructive feedback may begin to alleviate the Wikipedia gender gap. Moreover, the relatively high proportion of anonymous editors may exacerbate the Wikipedia gender gap, as anonymity may be perceived as male and more critical. [21]

A study by Ford and Wajcman observes that women and men are in a position to make a difference. In contrast, their central argument states that infrastructure studies in feminist technoscience allows the gender analysis to be taken to a further level. It looks at three issues within the infrastructure: content policies, software and the legalistic framework of operation. It suggests that it is possible to make the alteration of culture through knowledge of the complexity of Wikipedia policies. [22]


Former Wikimedia Foundation executive Sue Gardner provided by Wikipedia editors , “Why Women Do not Edit Wikipedia.” [23]

Several causes for this gender disparity have been suggested. A 2010 study revealed a Wikipedia female participation rate of 13 percent, view to be close to the 15 percent public opinion-leadership forums. [9] [24] Wikipedia research fellow Sarah Stierch is an author of “fairly common” for Wikipedia contributors to remain gender-anonymous. [25] A perceived unwelcoming culture and tolerance of violent and abusive language. [26] According to a 2013 study, [27] another cause of the gender gap in Wikipedia is the failure to attract and retain female editors, resulting in a negative impact on Wikipedia’s coverage.

Former Wikimedia Foundation executive director Sue Gardner Cited Nine Reasons Why women do not edit Wikipedia, culled from comments by female Wikipedia editors : [23]

  1. A lack of user-friendliness in the editing interface
  2. Not having enough free time
  3. A lack of self-confidence
  4. Aversion to conflict and an unwillingness to participate in lengthy edit wars
  5. Belief that their contributions are too likely to be reverted or deleted
  6. Some find icts overall atmosphere misogynistic
  7. Wikipedia is off-putting
  8. Being addressed as a male offspring to a woman with a grammatical gender
  9. Fewer opportunities for social connections and a welcoming tone

Lam et al . suggest That There May be a growing qui is not inclusive of women on Wikipedia, qui May be due to a disparity in male-to-female centric topics Represented and edited, the tendency for female users to be more active in the social and community Aspects of Wikipedia , an increased likelihood that edits by new female editors are reverted, and / or that articles with high proportions of female editors are more contentious. [18]

In July 2014, the National Science Foundation announced that it would spend $ 200,000 to study systemic gender bias on Wikipedia. The study will be led by Julia Adams and Hannah Brueckner. [28]

One may be more likely to be tagged for deletion. [29] [30] [31]


The Wikimedia Foundation has officially held, since at least 2011 when Gardner was executive director, that gender bias exists in the project. It has been a frustration with the degree of success achieved. It has also been noted that in the very limited leisure time women have had to participate more in social activities instead of editing Wikipedia. ‘ ” [32] [33] in 2011, the Foundation set a target of 25 percent of ict HAVING Identifying contributors as female by 2015. [6] in August 2013, Gardner Said,” I did not solve it. We didn’ The Wikimedia Foundation didn ‘ T solve it. The solution will not come from the Wikimedia Foundation. ” [32]

Writing for Slate in 2011, Heather Mac Donald called Wikipedia’s gender imbalance a “non-problem in search of a misguided solution.” Mac Donald asserted, “The most straightforward explanation for the differing rates of participation in Wikipedia-and the one that conforms to everyday experience-is that, on average, males and females have different interests and preferred ways of spending their free time.” [34]

In August 2014, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales announced in a BBC interview the Wikimedia Foundation’s plans for “doubling down” on the issue of gender bias at Wikipedia. Wales said the Foundation would be more open to more and more changes. [35]

Efforts to increase female editorship

Attendees at the 2013 Women in the Arts edit-a-thon in Washington, DC

Dedicated edit-a-thons -have beens Organized pour augmenter the coverage of women’s topics in Wikipedia and to encourage more women to edit Wikipedia. [36] These events are supported by the Wikimedia Foundation, which provides newer editors through the process. Recent edit-a-thons have given a specific focus to these subjects Australian female neuroscientists and women in Jewish history. [37]

VisualEditor , a project funded by the Wikimedia Foundation that allows for WYSIWYG -style editing on Wikipedia. [38] [39]

The “Wikipedia Teahouse” project was launched with the goal to provide a user-friendly environment for newcomers, with a particular goal of boosting women participation in Wikipedia. [40]

An early-2015 initiative to create a “women-only” space for Wikipedia editors was strongly opposed by Wikipedians. [41]

See also

  • Second-generation gender bias
  • Systemic bias in Wikipedia


  1. Jump up^ “University of Minnesota researchers reveal Wikipedia gender biases” . University of Minnesota . Retrieved 21 November 2016.
  2. Jump up^ “Tackling Wikipedia’s Gender Gap” . West Virginia University . Retrieved 3 March 2016 .
  3. Jump up^ Andrew Lih (20 June 2015). “Can Wikipedia Survive?” . . Washington . Retrieved 21 June 2015 . … Wikipedia editors; In 2011, less than 15 percent were women.
  4. Jump up^ Statistics based on the Wikimedia Foundation Wikipedia editor surveys2011(Nov. 2010-April 2011) andNovember 2011(April – October 2011)
  5. ^ Jump up to:b Hill, Benjamin Mako; Shaw, Aaron; Sánchez, Angel (26 June 2013). “The Wikipedia Gender Revisited: Characterizing Survey Response Bias with Propensity Score Estimation” . PLoS ONE . 8 (6): e65782. Bibcode : 2013PLoSO … 865782H . PMC  3694126  . PMID  23840366 . Doi : 10.1371 / journal.pone.0065782 .
  6. ^ Jump up to:c Cohen, Noam (30 January 2011). “Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List” . New York Times . Retrieved 31 January 2011 .
  7. Jump up^ Reagle, Joseph . ” ” Free as in sexist? “: Free culture and the gender gap . First Monday . Retrieved 10 October 2015 .
  8. Jump up^ “Joseph Reagle on the gender gap in geek culture” . 26 February 2013 . Retrieved 10 October 2015 .
  9. ^ Jump up to:b “Wikipedia Ponders Its Gender-Skewed Contributions –” .
  10. Jump up^ “WP: Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender Imbalance” (PDF) .
  11. Jump up^ Glott, Ruediger; Schmidt, Philipp; Ghosh, Rishab (March 2010). “Wikipedia Survey: Overview Results” (PDF) . Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 April 2010 . Retrieved 11 August 2014 .
  12. Jump up^ “Where Are the Women in Wikipedia?” . New York Times . 2 February 2011 . Retrieved 9 August 2014 .
  13. Jump up^ Herring, Susan C. (4 February 2011). “Communication Styles Make a Difference” . New York Times (opinion) . Retrieved 11 August 2014 .
  14. Jump up^ Reagle, Joseph M. (4 February 2011). ” ‘ Open’ Does not Include Everyone” . New York Times (opinion) . Retrieved 11 August 2014 .
  15. Jump up^ Cassell, Justine (4 February 2011). “Editing Wars Behind the Scenes” . New York Times (opinion).
  16. Jump up^ Reagle, Joseph; Rhue, Lauren (2011). “Gender Bias in Wikipedia and Britannica ” . International Journal of Communication . Joseph Reagle & Lauren Rhue. 5 : 1138-1158.
  17. Jump up^ “Wikipedia Editors Study: Results from The Editor Survey, April 2011 ” (PDF) . Wikipedia . April 2011 . Retrieved 18 May 2014 .
  18. ^ Jump up to:b Lam, Shyong K .; Uduwage, Anuradha; Dong, Zhenhua; Sen, Shilad; Musicant, David R .; Terveen, Loren ; Reidl, John (October 2011). WP: Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender Imbalance (PDF) . WikiSym’11 . ACM.
  19. Jump up^ Hargittai, Eszter; Shaw, Aaron (4 November 2014). “Mind the skills gap: the role of the Internet in differentiated contributions to Wikipedia”. Information, Communication & Society . 18 : 1-19. Doi: 10.1080 / 1369118X.2014.957711 .
  20. Jump up^ Bruce Maiman (23 September 2014). “Wikipedia grows up on college campuses” . The Sacramento Bee . Retrieved 23 September 2014 .
  21. Jump up^ Shane-Simpson, Christina; Gillespie-Lynch, Kristen (January 2017). “Examining potential mechanisms underlying the Wikipedia gender gap through a collaborative editing task”. Computers in Human Behavior . 66 : 312-328. Doi : 10.1016 / j.chb.2016.09.043 .
  22. Jump up^ Ford, Heather; Wajcman, Judy (2017). “‘Anyone can edit’, not everyone does: Wikipedia and the gender gap” . Social Studies of Science .
  23. ^ Jump up to:b Gardner, Sue (19 February 2011). “Nine Reasons Why Women Do not Edit Wikipedia, In Their Own Words” . (blog).
  24. Jump up^ Yasseri, Taha; Liao, Han-Teng; Konieczny, Piotr; Morgan, Jonathan; Bayer, Tilman (31 July 2013). “Recent research – Napoleon, Michael Jackson and Srebrenica across cultures, 90% of Wikipedia better than Britannica, WikiSym preview” . The Signpost . Wikipedia .
  25. Jump up^ “The women of Wikipedia: Closing the site’s giant gender gap”.
  26. Jump up^ “In UK, rising chorus of outrage over online misogyny” . .
  27. Jump up^ Jonathan T. Morgan; Siko Bouterse; Sarah Stierch; Heather Walls. “Tea & Sympathy: Crafting Positive New User Experiences on Wikipedia” (PDF) . Wikimedia Foundation.
  28. Jump up^ Harrington, Elizabeth (July 30, 2014). “Government-Funded Study: Why Is Wikipedia Sexist?” . Washington Free Beacon . Retrieved 31 July 2014 .
  29. Jump up^ “Editors Are Trying To Fix Wikipedia’s Gender And Racial Bias Problem” . Retrieved 13 January 2016 .
  30. Jump up^ “Project Aims to Raise Profile of Women Architects on Wikipedia” . Retrieved 13 January 2016 .
  31. Jump up^ “Does academia have a place on Wikipedia?” . Retrieved 13 January 2016 .
  32. ^ Jump up to:b Huang, Keira (11 August 2013). “Wikipedia fails to bridge gender gap” . South China Morning Post .
  33. Jump up^ “Wikistorming” . FemTechNet . Fall 2013.
  34. Jump up^ Mac Donald, Heather (9 February 2011). “Wikipedia Is Male-Dominated. That Does not Mean It’s Sexist.” . Slate . Retrieved January 7, 2015 .
  35. Jump up^ Wikipedia ‘completely failed’ to fix gender imbalance,BBCinterview withJimmy Wales, 8 August 2014; Starting at 45 seconds.
  36. Jump up^ Stoeffel (11 February 2014). “Closing Wikipedia’s Gender Gap – Reluctantly” . New York Magazine . Retrieved 27 August 2014 .
  37. Jump up^ “The Wikipedia wars: does it matter if our biggest source of knowledge is written by men?” . .
  38. Jump up^ “Class War!” The Register ” . El Reg . 18 August 2014 . Retrieved 4 December 2014 .
  39. Jump up^ “Kate Middleton’s wedding gown and Wikipedia’s gender gap.”. 13 July 2012 . Retrieved 4 December 2014 .
  40. Jump up^ “Tea & Sympathy: Crafting Positive New User Experiences on Wikipedia” . . Proc. CSCW ’13, 23-27 February 2013, San Antonio, Texas, USA. 2013.
  41. Jump up^ Paling, Emma, ​​”How Wikipedia Is Hostile to Women”, The Atlantic , 21 October 2015(subscription or advertising required)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *