# Is Wikipedia too 'masculine'? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 3, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415 "2014-02-03T14:34:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/21 "2014-02-03T18:54:21Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > … “It’s aesthetically very masculine in design.” … Meaning a “top down” hierarchical design, synonymous with patriarchy. Also symbolic of a penis, and lastly, a reference to the missionary position in sex. It is a non-stop unspoken yet unmistakable tribute to male superiority. Or so I have deduced by making it up out of thin air. ---
**Author:** ![Boyo\_Jim](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/87869e/32.png) [@Boyo\_Jim](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Boyo_Jim)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/22 "2014-02-03T18:55:22Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What would it look like if it were feminine in design? Less "i"s and “l”'s, more "o"s. ---
**Author:** ![Napier](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/ce73a5/32.png) [@Napier](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Napier)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/23 "2014-02-03T19:08:53Z")
I don’t know if we’re to take the “aesthetically masculine in design” quote at face value and speaking for the women launching a “Wikipedia Edit-a-Thon”, as the Daily Dot presents it. But, it could be a reference to descriptions of supposedly different cognitive styles between the genders as described here: > **[Masculine-Feminine Difference: How Max and Fran THINK - Difference Works](https://difference-works.com/masculine-feminine-difference-how-max-and-fran-think/)** > > After identifying the "foundational" difference between masculine and feminine ways of identifying ourselves in the world, we begin to look at three key drivers of workplace attitudes and behaviors. Using our prototypes of masculine and feminine... If so, that’s a plausible goal. The quoted material in the OP is obviously unfriendly to whatever they’re talking about and not likely to present it well. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/24 "2014-02-03T19:15:52Z")
Had this story had any validity, I would have assumed it was something along those lines - Wiki pages are generally organized in chronological order, and women don’t think that way or something. ---
**Author:** ![Bozuit](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/edb3f5/32.png) [@Bozuit](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bozuit)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/25 "2014-02-03T19:17:52Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > As for the edits, themselves, Wikipedia strives for factual statements that are neutral. But how do the facts make you _feel?_ ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 7:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/26 "2014-02-03T19:25:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > What would it look like if it were feminine in design? Tampons and boobies… _everywhere_ ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/27 "2014-02-03T19:27:35Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > If you go to the source links (such as [this](http://www.dailydot.com/society/wikipedia-gender-gap-sarah-stierch/) or [this](http://bitchmagazine.org/post/an-epic-edit-a-thon-takes-aim-at-wikipedias-gender-gap)), the tenor of the story changes quite a bit. The interview with Sarah Stierch, from which the Daily Caller writer plucked a single line, is about trying to get more women involved in editing Wikipedia. > > The Bitch Magazine article piece on Krystal South reveals that the edit-a-thon’s goal is to create Wiki pages for several hundred female artists, it’s even called [Art and Feminism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/ArtAndFeminism#Suggested_Topics). > > Doesn’t seem very out-there or controversial to me, but of course the Daily Caller will try to dress it up as a radical feminist conspiracy to rewrite Wikipedia into a feminist manifesto. If you ask me, that makes the whole thing look only a little bit less ridiculous. There are meaningless words and phrases (“the ‘brogrammer’ locker-room type of environment”), there’s childish language (“an epic feminist edit-a-thin”), vague claims of victimization (“a third of all female respondents have in some way been ‘assaulted, attacked, or treated poorly by colleagues on projects’”), and exaggerations of the importance of it all (“‘How the site is written has a political impact, I think,’ says multimedia artist and digital designer Krystal South, who is helping run an edit-a-thon on February 1st in Portland, Oregon. ‘Doing searches for contemporary female artists on Wikipedia, you find there are giant gaps.’”) These folks are free to try upping the number of women involved in Wikipedia if they so choose, but the rest of us are free to laugh at them if we so choose. ---
**Author:** ![Rachellelogram](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/rachellelogram/32/8689_2.png) [@Rachellelogram](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rachellelogram)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/28 "2014-02-03T19:29:39Z")
> [@Farin](#): > > I saw this earlier and I was attempting to look up examples of “feminist/feminism website designs” and I couldn’t find an example. I also couldn’t find a definition of what is “masculine” in web design. > > That means it’s probably not a founded idea, but something that someone has in their head. I don’t know it’s crap until I see some evidence as to what it’s referring to. > > As for the edits, themselves, Wikipedia strives for factual statements that are neutral. I’m not sure how that can be masculine or feminist overall, although I’m sure that some information can certainly be skewed in those directions, I would think it would be pared down without a dedicated “Take out the man in editing” campaign. They’re going to add pink hearts and opinion sections to every article. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/29 "2014-02-03T19:30:39Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > These folks are free to try upping the number of women involved in Wikipedia if they so choose, but the rest of us are free to laugh at them if we so choose. That sounds like a noble goal, and I find myself wondering why “we” might choose to laugh at them. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/30 "2014-02-03T19:33:44Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > If you ask me, that makes the whole thing look only a little bit less ridiculous. There are meaningless words and phrases (“the ‘brogrammer’ locker-room type of environment”), there’s childish language (“an epic feminist edit-a-thin”), vague claims of victimization (“a third of all female respondents have in some way been ‘assaulted, attacked, or treated poorly by colleagues on projects’”), and exaggerations of the importance of it all (“‘How the site is written has a political impact, I think,’ says multimedia artist and digital designer Krystal South, who is helping run an edit-a-thon on February 1st in Portland, Oregon. ‘Doing searches for contemporary female artists on Wikipedia, you find there are giant gaps.’”) > > These folks are free to try upping the number of women involved in Wikipedia if they so choose, but the rest of us are free to laugh at them if we so choose. A public campaign that relies on dry, muted language that downplays the issue isn’t likely to do very well, is it? I can see it now: “We’d like to introduce our campaign for more female wikipedia editors. It’s not really a big deal or anything, though. Just something we thought might be kind of nice. Who wants to sign up? Anyone?” ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/31 "2014-02-03T19:52:35Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > If you ask me, that makes the whole thing look only a little bit less ridiculous. There are meaningless words and phrases (“the ‘brogrammer’ locker-room type of environment”), there’s childish language (“an epic feminist edit-a-thin”), vague claims of victimization (“a third of all female respondents have in some way been ‘assaulted, attacked, or treated poorly by colleagues on projects’”), and exaggerations of the importance of it all (“‘How the site is written has a political impact, I think,’ says multimedia artist and digital designer Krystal South, who is helping run an edit-a-thon on February 1st in Portland, Oregon. ‘Doing searches for contemporary female artists on Wikipedia, you find there are giant gaps.’”) > > These folks are free to try upping the number of women involved in Wikipedia if they so choose, but the rest of us are free to laugh at them if we so choose. Sure, you’re free to…but why? Wikipedia editors being 91% male won’t shake our civilization to its knees, but it’s hardly a good thing. What’s there to laugh at here? ---
**Author:** ![Farin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e79b87/32.png) [@Farin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Farin)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/32 "2014-02-03T19:55:06Z")
> [@Bozuit](#): > > But how do the facts make you _feel?_ I’m a man, so any facts make me violent and angry. The sky is blue at noon and reddish orange at sun rise and sun set? ARRRRRRGH HULK SMASH! > [@Rachellelogram](#): > > They’re going to add pink hearts and opinion sections to every article. Can I suggest that they use their own client-side style sheet to make it look however they wish it to? > [@Human\_Action](#): > > Sure, you’re free to…but why? Wikipedia editors being 91% male won’t shake our civilization to its knees, but it’s hardly a good thing. What’s there to laugh at here? I propose a compromise: I think adding missing knowledge to Wikipedia is great. Some of their statements, however, \*are \* on the silly side. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 8:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/33 "2014-02-03T20:59:49Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Sure, you’re free to…but why? Wikipedia editors being 91% male won’t shake our civilization to its knees, but it’s hardly a good thing. What’s there to laugh at here? I’m entirely indifferent to most questions of gender balance. 91% of Wikipedia editors are male? 80% of Congresscritters are male? 100% of the Seattle Seahawks are male? 100% of their cheerleaders are female? 90% of the Physics students at a major university are male? 90% of the English students are female? 100% of Catholic priests are male? 100% of nuns are female? I see no reason to view any of it as a good or a bad thing. As for laughing, I laugh at shoddy writing and silly reasoning whenever I see, especially when it comes from self-important academics. And then I forget it and move on. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/34 "2014-02-03T21:34:03Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I’m entirely indifferent to most questions of gender balance. That’s hilarious! Because… something. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/35 "2014-02-03T22:10:34Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I’m entirely indifferent to most questions of gender balance. 91% of Wikipedia editors are male? 80% of Congresscritters are male? 100% of the Seattle Seahawks are male? 100% of their cheerleaders are female? 90% of the Physics students at a major university are male? 90% of the English students are female? 100% of Catholic priests are male? 100% of nuns are female? I see no reason to view any of it as a good or a bad thing. Most, eh? What makes the cut? > [@ITR champion](#): > > As for laughing, I laugh at shoddy writing and silly reasoning whenever I see, especially when it comes from self-important academics. And then I forget it and move on. Shoddiness and silliness are questions of taste, so, fair enough. ---
**Author:** ![Taber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ac91a4/32.png) [@Taber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Taber)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 10:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/36 "2014-02-03T22:24:48Z")
I was just reading some complaints about how rape scenes in movies like Blade Runner get euphemized down to “had sex” on wikipedia. I’m not sure what masculine design means, but there is a sexism problem on wikipedia ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/37 "2014-02-03T22:28:14Z")
I’m very protective of the “Lady Bug (video game)” entry. If somebody tries changing it to “Womyn Insect”, there will be consequences! ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/38 "2014-02-03T23:16:08Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > > [@](#): > > > > Wikipedia tends to attract a certain personality type, male or female. Stierch noted that the average Wikipedia editor is scholarly and detail-oriented, and the fact that fewer women are involved with the site may be a reflection of the traditional gender gap in higher education. :dubious: This isn’t the 50s. The gender gap these days is in the other direction, with more women getting a higher education than men. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [February 3, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/39 "2014-02-03T23:25:10Z")
Wikipedia has too many well educated white men. The answer is well educated white women. ---
**Author:** ![OurLordPeace](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/e8c25b/32.png) [@OurLordPeace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/OurLordPeace)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 1:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/40 "2014-02-04T01:49:11Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I’m entirely indifferent to most questions of gender balance. 91% of Wikipedia editors are male? 80% of Congresscritters are male? 100% of the Seattle Seahawks are male? 100% of their cheerleaders are female? 90% of the Physics students at a major university are male? 90% of the English students are female? 100% of Catholic priests are male? 100% of nuns are female? I see no reason to view any of it as a good or a bad thing. > > As for laughing, I laugh at shoddy writing and silly reasoning whenever I see, especially when it comes from self-important academics. And then I forget it and move on. Might your indifference stem from your unexamined privilege as you benefit from gender imbalances? Also, gender and sex are not the same thing, and those imbalances can also result in perspectives lost and ignored. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415.md?page=3)