zlacker

>>elsewh+(OP)
I can see worrying about harassment. "Inclusivity", though? (From the tone of the press release, they mean race and gender, not article subjects.) Wikipedia editors are anonymous unless they don't want to be. How can anyone tell?

>>Animat+L2
By choice of topics primarily?

Wikipedia has some severe biases when it comes to what and who counts as notable. For instance, you can compare ”programming pattern” and ”knitting pattern” and try to guess which is a 50 year practice and which is as old as civilization...

That sort of topic bias is best solved by adding new contributors, but they will intrinsically have to be different sorts of persons, and historically that difference has caused issues for the newcomers: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/08/us/wikipedia-harassment-w...

>>Siempr+C6
I can see that choosing topics to be gendered is itself problematic. Is the implied assumption that knitting is a women's interest not inclusive, and an unhelpful stereotype?

An example - there are pages which are not fleshed out as much as programming patterns such as childcare or kindergarten education which are commonly viewed as stereotypically gendered but which in reality all parents regardless of gender are actually interested in and write about.

>>thinki+ml
> I can see that choosing topics to be gendered is itself problematic. Is the implied assumption that knitting is a women's interest not inclusive, and an unhelpful stereotype?

The person you are responding didn't choose to gender the topic.

Society did that. You may not like it, but in 2020, most people do, in fact, gender those topics. Ignoring that is ignoring reality.