TheRedArchive

~ archived since 2018 ~

4
5

Wikipedia's Editors Are 91 Percent Male Because Citations Are Stored in the Ball Sack (jezebel.com)

submitted by Modredpillschool


[–]Modredpillschool[S] 6 points7 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

They are actually complaining about a gender gap... on a completely open, free to edit, voluntary site. Want to know why there's a gender gap? Apparently women don't give a shit about wikipedia.

The Wikimedia Foundation says it's committed to working on the Wikipedia gender gap, as it realizes it's best for the site as a whole. Lack of diversity hurts Wikipedia and it shows on the site, in its content and design. A culture that's centered around people who are all very similar lacks depth, introspection, and ultimately, growth.

Let's be clear here, wikipedia strives for objective documentation of real things based on real sources. Why would diversity of the editors have an effect unless the plan was to color that information with bias?

[–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

As a philanthropic model, its best not to piss off half the population.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children) | Copy Link

"The average Wikipedia editor is a well-educated white male. Well-educated white males have been writing history and the story of the world since ancient times,"

Yeah, I'm not a WN or anything as some lean in the manosphere (Roissy's site), but the reason white men wrote the history and story of the world is because they were the prime movers of western civilization.

I'm not a multiculturalist either, but white men were also the ones that opened it up for those not of the ethnic band too. So that men and women of any creed could come into the fold. If they choose it.

If they don't, you can't really cure it. Don't force the issue. It is like equality of sports programs. Guess what? More guys play sports.

[–]josephtkach 1 point2 points  (1 child) | Copy Link

To people like this, any demographic difference between men and women can only be evidence of hidden oppression of women by men. It is completely inconceivable that there could be any innate difference in women's proclivities.

[–]minoso2 4 points4 points [recovered] | Copy Link

I suggest everyone to go over her arguments again and notice that the only thing her arguments proved is that she:

  • is to dumb to figure out basic web editing layout

  • is to busy mindlessly surfing Facebook/twitter/instagram

  • is not confident enough to post corrections when she knows she is right

  • is to cowardly to even stand up for herself and express a simple opinion

  • wants her contribution to be kept for eternity

  • managed to call Wikipedia misogynistic

  • is off put because articles about sex show actual nakedness

  • does not like "male grammatica"

  • does not feel welcomed enough by Wikipedia because it does not support social relationships

her article is a big joke

[–]Modredpillschool[S] 1 point2 points [recovered] (0 children) | Copy Link

  • is not confident enough to post corrections when she knows she is right
  • is to cowardly to even stand up for herself and express a simple opinion

What women don't understand is that sometimes there are times you have to put yourself out there and risk being judged. We aren't judging women harsher than men. Men face it too. They just have the courage to do it anyway. And that builds confidence.

There is no patriarchy enforcing this. Women don't know that the hard way to confidence is trial and error and sometimes failure.

[–]Kepaso 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

aahh the good old gender gap. It's fascinating that they never think about this theory: maybe there is less women is because there are less interested?

Just look at the news and magazines stands and shops, the differences about men and women hobbies and passions : women = cooking, lifestyle, gossips and stars, house design, beauty, health. Men = photo, music, cinema, history, architecture,politics, geography, travel, etc. Of course we have all kind of trivial mags like sports, fishing, naked women, but at least we have mags that are talking about civilization. That's what wikipedia is about: documenting our world and civilization. Women aren't interested in that.

Of course some will say women like the same stuff as us and are participating in the creation of civilazation. It's true, but in general they arent interested in the same way we are. We men are nerds, maniacs, its inside us, we are built for this shit. We have raw energy to create and be active. When was the last time that you saw a some chicks argumenting between each others on which jazz era or musician was the best, the influence of blues on led zepelin, the way to boost their car, or having a 20 min conversation about WW2 or the fall of Rome? Even the art and music world is a big sausage fest, there is few women really interested to persue an artistic career.

[–]RedHonest 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

Of course, the real answer is female solipsism. It's really hard for women to care about anything that doesn't have anything to do with her, which is 99.9% of the content of an encyclopedia. The 9% of Wikipedia editors being female even sounds a bit high.

[–]renotime 0 points1 point  (0 children) | Copy Link

I like how she complained about the design but offered no alternatives.

"This sucks and it needs to change!" "Well, ok, we are open sourced and all, what would you suggest?" "Well, I don't know, but this sucks and it needs to change!"

You can kill a man, but you can't kill an idea.

© TheRedArchive 2024. All rights reserved.
created by /u/dream-hunter