Per this chart, based on a survey of editors. Two striking things leap out: first, editors are overwhelmingly male. Second, editors are overwhelmingly single and without children.
The second is easier to explain: those with more free time are more likely to be able to edit an online encyclopedia. But the first is not so easy to explain away. Why are Wikipedians overwhelmingly male?
E-Penis.
Overinflated sense of self worth?
(Probably not overwhelmingly relevant in this case, but I read an interesting article maybe five years ago about how the children/no children question often doesn’t tell the whole story when it comes to free time (and gender)– dependents might make more sense in most cases, because it could take into account looking after elderly parents, parents and siblings with disabilities, playing stepparent to nieces and nephews, etc.)
In my experience, men tend to become much more obsessed with their hobbies - especially the kind you work on alone.
Because geeks are overwhelmingly male, too.
Read the chart carefully. It’s not measuring the proportions of just editors. It’s measuring the the proportion of authors, editors, and administrators. In other words, it’s the proportion of people who contribute to Wikipedia at any level at all. What the chart says is that the contributors are mostly unmarried (and with no other attachments either) males with no children who are between 17 and 32 (I’m guessing a little bit on the ages), a little more than half of which already have a college degree. This is the same demographic as the geeks who are running many such online activities. These are single males who don’t have any family obligations tying down their free time yet. They are smart enough to be able to contribute to Wikipedia and don’t mind spending their free time on hard intellectual work that would be paid well for in most professional situations.
Good God Wendell. The accepted term for an author at Wikipedia is an editor, as they edit the Wiki pages. “Editor” is a catch-all term that I used. The numbers of administrators are also vanishingly small compared to the number of authors/editors.
It says on the webpage that “contributors include authors, editors, and administrators.” That means that contributors is the overall term and authors, editors, and administrators are the three subcategories. You’re the one using the term in a nonstandard way.
I suppose this works a bit in the other direction, as well: those who spend their time editing online encyclopedias are more likely to remain single. 
Indeed, excessive time online doing anything will be a problem:
Men have a higher variance on almost all traits than women do. Thus, when you look at the far end of the obsessiveness pool, you’ve got almost all men.
Would be interesting if they instituted some form of affirmative action or quotas for wikipedia articles, as France is trying to do for board of directors members.
Huh? Specifically:
Calling a contributor to Wikipedia an “editor” is entirely standard nomenclature, as anybody familiar with the project will attest. Regardless, what is the point of this continued hijack? It makes absolutely zero difference to the question asked in the OP: why is Wikipedia dominated by so many men?
Let me introduce you to scrapbooking.
I really think it’s as simple as this.
