# 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:** 6\ **Page:** 4
**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, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/61 "2014-02-04T20:40:39Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > 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. Serious question, If this discussion involved a black man complaining about how Wikipedia didn’t have enough black editors would you have said: "Start your own online encyclopedia! Get busy boy!" If not, why not? ---
**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, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/62 "2014-02-04T22:34:58Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > 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. Because I have no problem with Wikipedia as a concept, and no objection to either its content or its formatting. If I did, I’d look elsewhere. ---
**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, 11:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/63 "2014-02-04T23:29:41Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > Because I have no problem with Wikipedia as a concept, and no objection to either its content or its formatting. > > If I did, I’d look elsewhere. They don’t object to the concept either. They take issue with the execution, and as Wikipedia users, they can change it. Otherwise by your own reasoning you should have started your own encyclopedia instead of writing articles for Wikipedia. ---
**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 5, 2014, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/64 "2014-02-05T00:30:48Z")
> [@Jragon](#): > > 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.” One person’s aesthetic cultural gender norm is another person’s oppressive gender stereotype (well, sometimes it seems to work like that). How do we tell the difference? ---
**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\ **Post date:** [February 5, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/65 "2014-02-05T01:27:52Z")
> [@MsWhatsit](#): > > Not surprising. When one of the first lines of the article includes the line “obviously horribly sexist,” why did anyone keep reading after that? The intent is clearly to poke fun at the silly feminists and not to convey useful or accurate information. > > Edit: Based on the responses in this thread, I guess they do it because it works. Exactly all of this. Goddammit people. ---
**Author:** ![BigT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bigt/32/12044_2.png) [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)\ **Post date:** [February 6, 2014, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415/66 "2014-02-06T22:36:42Z")
> [@Marley23](#): > > They don’t object to the concept either. They take issue with the execution, and as Wikipedia users, they can change it. Otherwise by your own reasoning you should have started your own encyclopedia instead of writing articles for Wikipedia. They sure seem to object to the concept: > [@](#): > > As a counterpoint, Stierch offered up the fact that women tend to dominate other online communities, making up the majority of social media users. She said it’s a matter of choice about how to spend one’s time online, at that fewer women are drawn to the cold, technical, and argumentative environment of Wikipedia. Being cold, technical, and (to some extent) argumentative is a part of being an online encyclopedia run by consensus. And she’s talking about doing things to attract more women. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that she wants to change those aspects of the website. At least, I assume that’s what you are talking about, since the edit-a-thon doesn’t touch on any of those concepts you state. There’s no one objecting even to the execution in that context. It’s just a group of like-minded editors doing what Wikipedia groups do, fix up articles of shared interest. It’s no different from the group that fixes up and monitors video game projects. If Stierch wants a more female-friendly Wikipedia that has more social network concepts integrated, then, yes, I think she should create her own Wikimedia project that can be more social and less about the cold hard fact that an encyclopedia is about. > [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > Serious question, > > If this discussion involved a black man complaining about how Wikipedia didn’t have enough black editors would you have said: > > "Start your own online encyclopedia! > > Get busy boy!" > > If not, why not? If it also involved saying why the very core mission of the website alienated black users, then, yes. Note, again, this has nothing to do with the edit-a-thon, which is about getting existing users involved in a project, where the actual characteristics of the editors doesn’t matter. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-wikipedia-too-masculine/680415.md?page=3)