# 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:** 3
**Author:** ![Yllaria](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/yllaria/32/3452_2.png) [@Yllaria](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Yllaria)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/41 "2014-02-04T01:50:59Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > :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. Not in STEM. ---
**Author:** ![j666](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/9de0a6/32.png) [@j666](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/j666)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/42 "2014-02-04T02:48:53Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Yes, thank you. I’m not surprised that this turns out to be less ridiculous than the article in the OP made it sound. > [@Yllaria](#): > > Not in STEM. And women who do, are more likely to leave technical positions for other career paths. ---
**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 4, 2014, 5:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/43 "2014-02-04T05:06:46Z")
> [@Yllaria](#): > > Not in STEM. And? Wikipedia is about everything, not just STEM fields. Nor are STEM fields the be-all and end-all of human existence, anyway. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 7:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/44 "2014-02-04T07:39:12Z")
> [@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. Having met Tucker Carlson when we were both teenagers I’m not remotely surprised. He was always a frat boy intellectual even before old enough to be a frat boy. ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 1:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/45 "2014-02-04T13:16:29Z")
“Masculine design” means that it flows in a straight-forward narrative fashion, the way that males are single-minded and prefer logical reasoning. “Feminine design” would flow in a much more stream-of-consciousness fashion, the way that females are more emotional and less logical and… Oh, shit, I knew I couldn’t say that with a straight face. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 1:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/46 "2014-02-04T13:33:08Z")
How can someone who is complaining about gender equality even consider that there is such a thing as ‘masculine design’? That’s a tradtional gender stereotype. ---
**Author:** ![Clothahump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/51bf81/32.png) [@Clothahump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Clothahump)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 1:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/47 "2014-02-04T13:43:00Z")
> [@aldiboronti](#): > > I confess that I haven’t a clue what they’re talking about. Don’t feel bad, neither do they. ---
**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 4, 2014, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/48 "2014-02-04T13:57:53Z")
Well, I think we can all rest assured that _someone_ has no idea what’s going on. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/49 "2014-02-04T16:10:58Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > How can someone who is complaining about gender equality even consider that there is such a thing as ‘masculine design’? That’s a tradtional gender stereotype. I’m not sure it is a stereotype because nobody’s explained what it’s supposed to mean. And stereotypes and equality are different things. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/50 "2014-02-04T16:28:34Z")
The idea that wikipedia is too much about internet dick-waving fights with moderators who have no useful knowledge and delete your cites just because they don’t think you’re part of “the crowd” is pretty much true, so I wouldn’t be surprised if that was what was meant. Or it could be a collection of issues like how a while back, “American Novelists” and “American Women Novelists” were becoming seperate lists with no overlap. Because people searching for “American Novelists” would _obviously_ only want men. And this sort of stuff just comes with a general issue where the achievements of people other then white men tend to be ignored in encylopedias, and should be added to them, as they just might be a biiiit more important than the complete biography of Sonic the Hedgehog. The problem is that wikipedia is a joke but is sadly taken seriously. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/51 "2014-02-04T17:00:44Z")
If Wikipedia IS “too masculine,” there’s a very simple solution. Come on, Sarah Stierch, start your own online encyclopedia, and show us how it’s done! I hope YOUR version will be so female-friendly and so perfect that Wikipedia will be driven out of business by your sheer awesomeness. Get busy, girl. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/52 "2014-02-04T17:02:49Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > If Wikipedia IS “too masculine,” there’s a very simple solution. Exactly: edit Wikipedia because one of its virtues is that it’s open to everyone and allows for public discussions of issues like this- > [@](#): > > Come on, Sarah Stierch, start your own online encyclopedia, and show us how it’s done! I hope YOUR version will be so female-friendly and so awesome that Wikipedia will be driven out of business by your sheer awesomeness. Oh, you meant ‘I am not personally interested in your concerns, so you’re obliged to take them out of my sight.’ Yeah, that’s a good one. ---
**Author:** ![Karrius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/71c47a/32.png) [@Karrius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Karrius)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/53 "2014-02-04T17:04:58Z")
This thread is a shining example of [Lewis’s Law.](http://feministphilosophers.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/lewis.png) ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/54 "2014-02-04T17:33:50Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > How can someone who is complaining about gender equality even consider that there is such a thing as ‘masculine design’? That’s a tradtional gender stereotype. Let’s slow down here. There’s a difference between recognizing cultural gender differences and the effect they have on people raised in a given culture, and insinuating that the genders are **a priori** predisposed to liking certain things, or are freaks if they don’t fit norms. [Here](http://depts.washington.edu/sibl/Publications/Cheryan,%20Plaut,%20Davies,%20%26%20Steele%20(2009).pdf) is a meta-study about the representation of women in Computer Science that shows that simple environmental changes can drastically affect “out-group” peoples interests in the subject matter. Indeed, simply replacing Star Trek posters with nature paintings had an immediate effect on raising womens’ interest in CS. > [@Abstract](#): > > People can make decisions to join a group based solely on exposure to that group’s physical environment. > Four studies demonstrate that the gender difference in interest in computer science is influenced by > exposure to environments associated with computer scientists. In Study 1, simply changing the objects > in a computer science classroom from those considered stereotypical of computer science (e.g., Star Trek > poster, video games) to objects not considered stereotypical of computer science (e.g., nature poster, > phone books) was sufficient to boost female undergraduates’ interest in computer science to the level of > their male peers. Further investigation revealed that the stereotypical broadcast a masculine stereotype > that discouraged women’s sense of ambient belonging and subsequent interest in the environment > (Studies 2, 3, and 4) but had no similar effect on men (Studies 3, 4). This masculine stereotype prevented > women’s interest from developing even in environments entirely populated by other women (Study 2). > Objects can thus come to broadcast stereotypes of a group, which in turn can deter people who do not > identify with these stereotypes from joining that group. We don’t know what was meant by “masculine design”, so I have no idea if this actually applies in this case, but you can’t discount the fact that women raised in a certain culture are likely to be affected by aesthetic gender norms ingrained by that culture as sexist. Now the **solution** to this problem is admittedly contentious: to what degree should we cater to stereotypes when attracting demographics, and to what degree should we simply crusade against cultural gender norms? Both lead to problems – both ethical and practical. Especially because men and women aren’t hive minds, changing something to appeal to “women” (in general) may well easily repulse **specific** women. It’s not an easy issue, but I also don’t think it’s right to say “there’s no a priori difference between the genders, thus we must ignore all cultural gender norms when designing utilities and pray it works out.” ---
**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 4, 2014, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/55 "2014-02-04T18:40:49Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Come on, Sarah Stierch, start your own online encyclopedia, and show us how it’s done! I hope YOUR version will be so female-friendly and so perfect that Wikipedia will be driven out of business by your sheer awesomeness. Are you really equating her position with Conservapedia? ---
**Author:** ![DrCube](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a3d4f5/32.png) [@DrCube](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrCube)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/56 "2014-02-04T19:55:58Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Come on, Sarah Stierch, start your own online encyclopedia, and show us how it’s done! I hope YOUR version will be so female-friendly and so perfect that Wikipedia will be driven out of business by your sheer awesomeness. > > Get busy, girl. No need to start your own encyclopedia, Wikipedia is still there. Contribute, and it’s yours too. There’s nothing wrong with a push for more women to contribute to Wikipedia. I’m all for it. Some of the motivation seems off (“masculine design”? It’s not like they have Rambo’s naked torso on every page), but regardless of their motivation, the cabal of Wikipedia editors needs some diversifying. Not because they’re mostly men, but because they are a small group with a necessarily limited perspective. Time to shake Wikipedia up. More inclusive equals higher quality, in my mind. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 8:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/57 "2014-02-04T20:03:58Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Oh, you meant ‘I am not personally interested in your concerns, so you’re obliged to take them out of my sight.’ Yeah, that’s a good one. The Straight Dope’s bosses don’t have any obligation to listen to any suggestions I make for changes, let alone to implement them. And Wikipedia has no obligation to make any changes feminists want. If I don’t like whatever direction the SDMB goes in, nobody’s stopping me from seeking (or creating) a new web site more to my liking. Same goes for disgruntled feminists. If they believe women are just dying for an online encyclopedia geared toward female tastes, here’s their big chance to put their time and money where their mouths are. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/58 "2014-02-04T20:05:13Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > The Straight Dope board doesn’t have any obligation to listen to any changes I suggest, let alone implement them. And Wikipedia has no obligation to make any changes feminists want. Do you understand what Wikipedia is and how it works? > [@](#): > > If they believe women are just dying for an online encyclopedia geared toward women They haven’t said they want an encyclopedia geared toward women. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/59 "2014-02-04T20:19:36Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > Do you understand what Wikipedia is and how it works? Of course I do- I’ve written quite a few articles for them. I’d like to think it’s my own testosterone and my own sheer virility oozing into each piece that makes WIkipedia seem excessively masculine. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2014, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/60 "2014-02-04T20:23:48Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Of course I do- I’ve written quite a few articles for them. And yet you’re saying that if someone doesn’t like something about Wikipedia, they should start their own site instead of editing Wikipedia. Why? I thought the whole point of Wikipedia is that it’s maintained by its users and is self-correcting. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415.md?page=4)