Dewdrop-Lollipop not feminist enough

[Full disclosure: I am not only a woman, but was also a Women's Studies minor in college (majors were not available), so I tend to have pre-disposed but not inflexible opinions on this sort of thing.]

I’ll admit that reading Jane’s entry on Monday did not make me run to the Wikichix site to see what it was all about. However, it did interest me enough to mention it to my boyfriend, and he jumped all over it. He immediately began to send them an email to request an account with his own contact information and the name “Grace” (I suggested Wilma). After a google search revealing no hits for that name and realizing that they would ‘confirm his femininity’ through his school email address, he sort of chickened out and used my email instead. I wouldn’t let him use my name, so he used Jane Smither (actually my grandmother’s name, I think), and the username “dewdroplollipop.” “Jane’s” email was appropriately full of smiley faces and exclamation points, asserted her female-ness, and asked for registration. One ‘Submit’ button and a google search later, he discovered that Jane Smither is part of the Women and Gender Differences Research Group of the National Institute on Drug Abuse.

Now, if anything could get you in, it should be credentials like that, right? But alas, I have yet to receive any communication whatsoever from the Goddesses of Wikichix and am beginning to lose interest in their whole schick.

I feel nearly the same way here as I did the first time I read bell hooks. That is, perhaps there is a bias that exists here; does further subdivision fix it? If, contrary to all logic, Wikipedia, a faceless and anonymous Internet site, does somehow discriminate against women editors and oppresses women’s ideas of what everything in the world is, shouldn’t this be fixed from the inside? Won’t a better product emerge if everyone works together on one thing to make it better instead of throwing down their toys and retreating to the “_____-only” clubhouse? Instead of discriminating ourselves further, shouldn’t we simply issue a call to encourage women to post on Wikipedia and other Wikisites? Self-segregation, especially with specific rules banning spectators and participants who are Others, does nothing but encourage stereotypes, prejudices, and distrust.

By the way, in a google search for bell hooks, the first entry is her Wikipedia article, which begins like this:

bell hooks (born Gloria Jean Watkins on September 25, 1952) is an American intellectual, feminist, and social activist. hooks focuses on the interconnectivity of race, class, and gender and their ability to produce and perpetuate systems of oppression and domination. She has published over thirty books and numerous scholarly and mainstream articles, appeared in several documentary films, and participated in various public lectures. Primarily through an African American female perspective, hooks addresses race, class, and gender in education, art, history, sexuality, mass media, and feminism.

Please, Wikichix, point out to me the glaring “systemic gender bias in Wikipedia” that apparently makes “it clear that a number of women [are] not comfortable contributing to the conversation.” Obviously, I’m too repressed to see it myself.

In related news, said boyfriend just called and pointed out that when you rearange the letters in "feminist" you get "i fist men." heh.

Feminism and the Internet

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.