W6: Who do you think edits Wikipedia? The young, the old, male, female, Americans, koreans? /WANG XIAOLING, 왕효령

 1) Summary

Wikipedia opens editing rights to all users, and in the editing rules, no gender-restricted items are found. However, in 2008, a survey found that less than 13% of Wikipedia editors worldwide were women. This "everyone can edit" free online encyclopedia was exploded mainly in the hands of men. A follow-up survey in 2011 found the same result: Globally, female editors accounted for 9%; in the UK, it was 15%. In contrast, there is no obvious gender difference in the proportion of readers. 


2) Interesting point

Because editing Wikipedia usually means deleting or changing the work of other editors, conflicts are very common. This is not just proofreading. The "edit wars" caused the disputes among users, as well as harassment and disruptive behaviors, all contributed to a hostile environment, particularly unattractive to women. 


3) Discussion point

So besides that, why do you think there are so few women editing Wikipedia articles?

Comments

  1. JeongYoon OhApril 7, 2021 at 5:00 AM

    I really didn't know that the proportion of women among Wikipedia contributors was so small! I actually thought Wikipedia contributor characteristics would be more affected by individual personality than by gender. In a really old-fashioned way, men are more likely to have an active personality than women, which contributes more to Wikipedia editing, but I really don't want to say that. This is because I want to say that active behavior is not gender difference, but individual difference!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

W10 : Can we think of some example of how Internet has changed our culture? / 박소민(SOMIN PARK)

 1. Summary  The Internet has changed our culture so much. First, through the Internet, we can meet people regardless of distance. People in each country communicated over the Internet and reduced the barriers to distance by creating relationships. Also, the Internet has let us stay away from books. When we want to find expertise, we can get it from Wikipedia or Google. Even information in books can be obtained through e-books, reducing access to libraries and paper books. 2. Interesting point Further to the above, our brains are gradually degenerating because we don't have to remember information. We are constantly interrupted by SNS notifications ringing on our phones when we do something, so our concentration and attention are being reduced. Furthermore, the ease of obtaining information online is causing our short-term memory to decline. 3. Discussion point I think the Internet has made it easy to sever a relationship with a person because we can meet another person simply...
Read more

W7: Review of Good Faith Collaboration / Suyoung Han

  Review of Good Faith Collaboration 1) Summary – Wikipedia from an ethnographic perspective: focusing on collaboration within the community Wikipedia, which is called the world's largest encyclopedia, is an open community and is becoming more and more solid with the participation of various people, conflict, and resolution. In this respect, Joseph M. Reagle Jr. attempted to explain the culture that takes place within Wikipedia. The book describes how Wikipedia was created and what it values. In particular, he described Wikipedia in a book from an ethnographic point of view, and focused on cooperation within the community. 2) Interesting Point – Wikipedia is simple, but not I realized that Wikipedia is not just a site made up of community activities, but rather a collaborative activity that is carried out concretely for the goal. Before I read the book, Wikipedia was an encyclopedia site that only gave me information (even I didn't trust the information), and I thought ...
Read more

w9: Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? LiuXinlei

 Its often said by teachers that “Wikipedia is a good place to start, but a bad place to finish” why? In terms of the comprehensiveness of the content, we have to admit the advantages of Wikipedia. For example, Wikipedia is undoubtedly my first choice when I don't understand an event at all. It is convenient, fast and comprehensive, and I can spend the least time to understand the whole content of this fact as comprehensively and neutrally as possible. But in the process of in-depth learning, Wikipedia can only be used as an introductory content, because in learning we need to understand this fact as much as possible, and we need to understand the different views of scholars in different regions on the same event. There will be different theories. Some theories seem to be not neutral or even discriminatory or ethnographic at present (such as Marxism and Marxism in China), and it is not suitable for Wikipedia. Be shown. In short, Wikipedia has a very low threshold for users. It assu...
Read more