Not in STEM.
And women who do, are more likely to leave technical positions for other career paths.
And? Wikipedia is about everything, not just STEM fields. Nor are STEM fields the be-all and end-all of human existence, anyway.
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.
“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.
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.
Don’t feel bad, neither do they.
Well, I think we can all rest assured that someone has no idea what’s going on.
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.
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.
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.
Exactly: edit Wikipedia because one of its virtues is that it’s open to everyone and allows for public discussions of issues like this-
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.
This thread is a shining example of Lewis’s Law.
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 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.
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.”
Are you really equating her position with Conservapedia?
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.
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.
Do you understand what Wikipedia is and how it works?
They haven’t said they want an encyclopedia geared toward women.
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.
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.