So today it’s my turn to start the week off with a new topic. Sad to say I am currently exhausted after a twelve hour workday, so I hope I can put my thoughts together coherently. I’ve chosen two topics which are close to my heart. I am a self-professed internet addict, and a self-identified feminist. There are far too many things that can be written about each of these topics individually to be compressed into a one-week-long conversation; however, I think that the point where feminism and the internet intersect makes for a good starting place.
As discussed somewhat during our inaugural week, the internet has completely changed the way we as humans relate to one another. We can communicate instantaneously over large distances, connect with like-minded individuals whom we never would have met otherwise, and voice our opinions on any topic online for all to see. Kinda like I’m doing now. Those of us who are avid users of the internet have sites we visit religiously. One of my absolute favorite spots online is wikipedia. I’ve found that if I’m on the hunt for information, I check wikipedia first – before Google even. It’s an incredible resource.
I have never edited wikipedia; I am simply a user, albeit a frequent and happy one. [For those of you who for some reason are unaware, anyone can edit any article on wikipedia.] Why have I never edited an article on wikipedia? Well, I haven’t stumbled upon any articles concerning subjects about which I am knowledgeable that I feel require editing. If I ever do run across such a subject, there’s a high probability that I would indeed edit it; however, as I use wikipedia in order to learn about new things, what are the chances?
I bring all this up because I didn’t want you to think I’ve never done any editing because I “have a low self-perception of [my] expertise level” or because I’m “unwilling to become a target of sexist criticisms” – two of the reasons cited for the creation of wikichix, a wiki-site dedicated providing a place “for female wiki editors to discuss issues of gender bias in wikis, to promote wikis to potential female editors, and for general discussion of wikis in a friendly female only environment.” Kind of like a women’s issues/feminism focused version of wikipedia. Only women can view the content of wikichix, and only women can edit said content. In order to become a member, you must email them requesting membership and specifying that you are indeed female.
I, for one, see some major flaws in this concept:
Wikipedia is a vast and wonderful repository of information, and you don’t have to register in order to edit it, much less to gain access to said information. If I’m searching for information, which am I more likely to use: a site that requires me to send an email requesting membership before I can even use its search function, or a site which allows me automatic access to its wealth of information? The information found in wikichix might very well be more accurate, but is the average user going to jump through the extra hoops to gain access to it? I would also argue that the “average user” is the person who would benefit the most from easy access to accurate information. (I say this because I would expect that individuals willing to jump through aforementioned hoops probably already have a good base of knowledge when it comes to things such as feminism and gender bias in wikis.)
The creators of wikichix mentioned that there are fewer females than males registered as editors on wikipedia… and yet they seem to be exacerbating this problem. While they might wish to “promote wikis [in general] to potential female editors” it seems to me that starting a closed, female-only wiki community instead of encouraging women to edit the democratic virtual metropolis that is wikipedia is counter-productive. Thoughts?
Okay... must crash... off to bed.
5 comments:
I think that it is crap. OK, maybe not crap, but I think men should be allowed. To me, their policy suggests that only women should be concerned about feminist issues and that men have nothing to contribute. The men I choose to surround myself with are all feminists (though there are a couple who may not embrace the term). Don't get me wrong, I know and interact with non-feminist males, but not by choice. This reminds me of when I worked for the non-profit that helped people with disabilities. One of my pet peeves was when I encountered people who thought that since I did not have a disability I had no business working in the field. I thought that was crap too (my eloquence shocks me). I think that in all civil rights movements, those who are not the target of the movement should be welcomed if they want to contribute. If you know me, you know that I am a tree-hugging liberal. One of the areas that I frequently disagree with my liberal friends about is the morality of groups/clubs designed exclusively for certain races or sexes. At the risk of having my donkey pin revoked, in general I find those type of practices to be racist/sexist.
Melissa
I've edited wikipedia a couple of times, but it's usually to remove gross inaccuracies (Sasha Jones, future president of the USA, was born in Ft. White, Florida, from the Ft. White entry), or gigantic issues of bias (Cindy Sheehan, a terrorist sympathizer, from the Cindy Sheehan entry).
I do consider myself a feminist, though, even though I've gotten into arguments with a lot of people who claim I can't be a feminist since I'm a man, or who claim that feminists believe that women are superior to men and men should possess fewer rights than women. The second argument came about when a female friend of mine claimed she wasn't a feminist, and I said it was dumb that she was a woman and wasn't a feminist.
I too agree that it is asinine that women should have their own wiki. Without knowing anything about it beyond your post, it certainly doesn't seem like anyone's fault that women are not registered users as much on Wikipedia. But for one thing, I know that you don't have to be a registered user to edit Wikipedia; I have edited it several times and have never registered. I might imagine that women might prefer to edit anonymously; I think women are more thoughtful and careful and would prefer not to enter information if they don't have to. That's without thinking too much about the issue.
I'll also say that I've been amazed at how well Wikipedia keeps on top of their articles; I've found articles in the past that had obviously incorrect and/or vandalism done to them, and almost every time, before I had time to fix it myself, someone else fixed it.
On more comment about Wikipedia...
It is not a scientfic resource. If I have one more student ask me if they can count Wikipedia as a required reference...
Melissa
Here's a late addition to some of the arguments aforementioned, since I finally got my head together after jet-lag and a potential cold. I think this site is counter-productive as well for two reasons. First, if what Nick says is true, and one doesn't even have to be a registred edit Wikipedia, then it makes me wonder which site is striving more for equal opprotunities (especially if one has to be a registred member and proven female to even use the search engine of wikichix). Secondly, by having so many loop holes and cut-off with restrictions, it seems that wikichix is stifling the promotion of this pontential--therefore going against the whole reason for why the site was created in the first place. How can the pontential of female editors be promoted to all if the site is going to remain so incubated? How is this even promotion? Just wondering.
Post a Comment