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
The last edit to the Knitting article at the time of writing is 24 September 2019‎, and the page doesn't seem to have any sort of edit protection enabled. I'm confident Wikipedia's policies aren't the major issue holding back a flood of knitting-oriented contributors. The people involved in knitting probably just aren't heavy internet users.

As for the lurking culture war and worrying about the word 'inclusivity' it is hard to imagine a less important issue. Wikipedia is one of the most structurally democratic organisations on the entire planet, and possibly the knowledge accumulating enterprise most resistant to social pigeonholing of its members. Even I could literally copy their software and content and rehost the whole thing if I don't like how the project is run. The Wikimedia Foundation can do whatever it thinks is best; good luck to them. There is no reasonable problem here, even for the paranoid.

>>roenxi+rg
> The people involved in knitting probably just aren't heavy internet users.

The knitters manage to set up vast collection of patters for download just fine, and more people spent time knitting last month than there are programmers in the USA, so it is in fact more an issue of them not being present on wikipedia.

>>Siempr+Bh
The fact that more people knit in the US than there are programmers is irrelevant though for the argument that most of "the people involved with knitting probably just aren't heavy internet users."

And it's conceivable that it's only a relatively small percentage of all practitioners who actually upload patterns.

>>kleiba+Hk
> And it's conceivable that it's only a relatively small percentage of all practitioners who actually upload patterns.

That holds for anything through - including programming. Why would it be so hard to accept that a group of people can be active on internet without adding stuff to wikipedia?

Wikipedia is crappy about anything sewing, knitting, embroidery etc related. But whenever I need something, I can find information on reddit or blogs or youtube quickly and easily. It is not that information does not exist on the internet in general, it is that those groups dont find wikipedia place to put stuff in. It is not even that those groups cry for wikipedia to add them in cause they are helpless without that. Wikipedia is not a thing in that space, because who cares about wikipedia and anecdotally those few who tried found it generally waste of time and frustrating.

This is wikipedia finding about situation, because its mission is "to be the largest, most comprehensive, and most widely-available encyclopedia ever written" and it is failing in these areas. And somehow people take offence on that.