Wikipedia:Village pump (news)

[[:|WP:VPN]]

The news section of the village pump is used for news or updates that are expected to require public discussion, rather than, say, specific actions, or discussion on their own talk pages. Wikipedia milestones should be posted at Wikipedia:Announcements; all other news should go to the community bulletin board.

« Archives, no archives yet (create)

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia:Village pump (news)/Archive. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

These discussions will be kept archived for 7 more days. During this period the discussion can be moved to a relevant talk page if appropriate. After 7 days the discussion will be permanently removed.

Male Domination?

During my time on English Wikipedia, I’ve come to realize just how male dominated it is (I myself am male). Seriously, how many Wikipedians are female? If these legendary creatures do exist, they would be classified as “rare and endangered”. But perhaps they are more common than I think, as it is difficult to tell and we tend to assume the user is male. But I digress; Female Wikipedians are few and far between. Unfortunately - we need Female Wikipedians, to continue effectively as an encyclopedia, as they can offer insights that males cannot. Male/female insights and interest differ radically. Compare:

The truth lies within the Article quality. How can we overcome this?

If I am wrong, and every second editor is female – correct me. I also apologize for stereotyping and generalizing. I am also unsure of how Wikipedia’s Homosexual community rates in this.

User:Dfrg.msc File:DFRG. MSC.jpg 06:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do feel rather stereotyped and generalized by the selection of articles you feel I should be editing. Do you want me to be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen as well? --Serie 08:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But wait, according to Plato and Jung, among others, we have a male side and a female side, each of us. This is well-known to those who uphold the ideas of yang and yin. Perhaps it is merely a matter of considering NPOV when writing. And, those who seek their "other side" might even become more sensitive to the views of "the other" in their relationships. A win-win situation. --Ancheta Wis 09:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the examples picked were stereotyped, but I believe the point holds. The very fact that a man trying to make the point picked these examples speaks volumes. Male contributors, even well-intentioned ones, often don't know what topics women are likely to want to read or write about. The gender imbalance results one of the more significant unintended biases of Wikipedia. - Jmabel | Talk 22:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but I was just wondering what this discussion could possibly achieve. --Nscheffey^(T/C) 00:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some issues are easy to address. Look for false assumptions that all people are men (e.g. by searching text for 'he', 'him', and 'his'). See an example edit. bobblewik 16:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an "issue". When gender is unspecified, it is accepted in English grammar to use the masculine pronoun. It's arbitrary; it doesn't imply everyone is male. ~ Booya ^Bazooka 14:26, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Accepted" is rather overstating the case. It is traditional, and is accepted by some people, while being opposed by others and now uncommon. See also grammatical gender. Warofdreams talk 16:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wikipedian women just have better taste than the music and clothing you've picked. soccer is BY FAR more popular than netball. I think I know just as many women who listen to system of a down as men. your point is probably true in anycase, but by stereo typing what men and women are interested in, you're probably making the problem WORSE, not better. perhaps you should be looking more at truly gender specific topics, such as erectile disfunction Vs breast cancer. personally, I can't see any solution anyway... hey, wait! why don't we change the theme colours of wikipedia from blue to pink! --naught101 23:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect this has more to do with presumptions than anything else. Despite my username's derivation from the first female officer of the Russian army, and a statement at the top of my userpage to that effect (including a portrait), when other editors refer to me by a personal pronoun it's usually "he." I've created nine new warfare categories and quite a few military articles, but have yet to edit Madonna. Maybe I should change my username to G.I. Barbie. Durova 04:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC):[reply]

The gender of people from nationalities other than European/American may not be obvious to Europeans and Americans. Most people get MY gender wrong, even though I'm here under my given name. (PS: this seems to be catching, because now at least one South Asian has got it wrong as well. How mortifying.) The gender imbalance is probably going to change in the future. I suspect many women edit without logging in, as they may not necessarily want to have to deal with user talk and community stuff as well as simple edits. I used to do that before I created a user ID. PS I'd also like to say that all your examples are very occidental. I have played and liked Half Life (not 2, it hasn't come to these shores yet) but neither Prada nor netball have any associations for me. Nor does Madonna. --Rimi 13:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that this topic has already been much discussed and researched on WP:BIAS. nadav 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am a female.
It is super-easy for people to deduce that from my username (but I don't mind).
I've never been a Madonna fan and would rather eat my own vomit than listen to En Vogue ripoff artistes Destiny's Child.
I like soccer.
I could give a rat's arse about Prada or most any other big-name designer. Exceptions are Ralph Lauren and any of the Kahn & Bell-style New Romantic designers, but the former is due to his egalitarian designs and the latter is due to my overall interest in that whole scene/genre (and the only "name" in the whole scene was Antony Price anyway).
I've never really thought about any apparent male "bias" here on Wikipedia.
I do enjoy hammering a point home so many times the poor point has got no actual point to it.
BTW, something I WAS interested enough in to try to create a new article for is the fantastic group the Scars, which has since been contributed to by at least one other person. (Yay!) It certainly ain't no Destiny's Child-type thing. And I like that. ;)
I'll go now. I promise. (Krushsister 02:50, 2 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Yes, the examples picked were stereotyped, but I believe the point holds. The very fact that a man trying to make the point picked these examples speaks volumes. Male contributors, even well-intentioned ones, often don't know what topics women are likely to want to read or write about. The gender imbalance results one of the more significant unintended biases of Wikipedia. - Jmabel | Talk 22:47, 9 August 2006 (UTC) . Yes! he (or she) gets it! This is what I am on about! Dfrg.m s c ^{1 . 2 . 3} 22:57, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you see that that mindset just perpetuates stereotypes? As a woman, I do not think I have distinctly different tastes in articles I like to read than any man. I like to read about sports, construction, books, mathematical concepts, people, etc. I like to pull from a wide variety of knowledge and learn about many different things. Any differences that do occur in male/female tastes of article reading etc. are only a result of socialization. Ex: maybe more women read about "beauty" because they grow up thinking this is a higest good. Although, lately it seems more pressure is put on males to be attractive as well, so perhaps they read about beauty, just the same. Who knows - there is no clear brightline. The point is that this is silly. It's ridiculous to think we should write articles thinking "ahh this is an article men will be interested in reading" or "ahh this is an article women will be interested in reading." By saying: "Male contributors, even well-intentioned ones, often don't know what topics women are likely to want to read or write about" --- you are just perpetuating stereotypes. Gender is a social construct. Sex (anatomical differences) do exist, but gender, does not. (Or at least, is very questionable and insubstantial). Information should not be gendered. Free knowledge.

One of our most prodigious and esteemed contributers, User:SlimVirgin, is a woman. Batmanand | Talk 11:30, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FoxTrot

Wikipedia was mentioned in today's FoxTrot comic strip.

First panel:

Teacher to Peter Fox: "Peter, about your paragraph on Thomas Edison ..."

Peter: "What about it?"

Second panel:

Teacher: It's a word-for-word copy of what's on Wikipedia. I expect you to do original work.

Third panel:

Peter: Who's to say I didn't write the Wikipedia entry myself?

Fourth panel:

Teacher: Save the loopholes for law school, son.

Peter: Tell you what. I'll settle for a B+

User:Zoe|(talk) 01:56, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I liked it. -- Donald Albury 02:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly, someone doesn't know how to use the history tab. --Carnildo 06:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NY Times 2006-09-02

Thie article: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/02/technology/02shortcuts.html repeats the librarian position that Wikipedia is not a source to use for research. Did it get discussed, and if so, how can I find the discussion? - Jaysbro 18:17, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No one should cite an encyclopedia as a source. Encyclopedias are a first stop in research: follow the citations from the article to the sources the editors draw upon, read those, and cite them. 72.199.30.31 01:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipe-tan makes a cameo appearance in UK magazine Games TM

File:Wikipe-tan GamesTM.jpg

Wikipe-tan in games™

Wikipe-tan, the Wikipedia OS-tan has found its way into the latest edition of games™ magazine (issue 48). It's found on page 30 beside a regular column on the Japanese Gaming scene by correspondant Tim Rogers. The article is absolutely nothing about Wikipedia, but instead about the maid cafe culture in Japan. - Hahnch e n 01:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their caption seems a bit inaccurate, considering Wikipe-tan has nothing to do with video games. Oh well, one more point for Wikipe-tan as mascot. --tjstrf 04:13, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did they ask permission? (Somehow I doubt they included a copy of the GFDL.) Or at least a nice reference to Wikipedia? Dragons flight 05:02, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photography events projects

Some subjects, in particular famous people, for which we would like to have free images, only provide good photography opportunities at specific events. I thought it would be good to have a calendar of such events, so we can increase the chance that there are Wikimedians making photographs and donating them to Commons (or Wikipedia or whatever). Those who are interested in such a project, please check out Commons:Commons:Photography event calendar and cooperate in making this thing work. Thanks in advance! - Andre Engels 11:28, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]