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
Inclusivity of editors is a major factor for inclusivity of content.

Different demographics have different interests, experiences, and knowledge. It's trivially obvious that getting a broader subset of society to contribute will also broaden the content.

With less than 10% of editors being women, for example, content is guaranteed to be somewhat skewed, even assuming absolutely no ill will by anybody.

Among the famous examples are a scientist's entry being deleted as "not notable" just weeks before she won the Nobel Prize. Or, if you prefer quantitative data, that articles about women tend to emphasise their relationships and children (https://arxiv.org/pdf/1501.06307v2.pdf).

>>IAmEve+C4
> Different demographics have different interests, experiences, and knowledge. It's trivially obvious that getting a broader subset of society to contribute will also broaden the content.

Wikipedia wants to be an encyclopedia though, not a bag of personal anecdotes and life experiences.

>>luckyl+L6
Except we observe empirically that the existing Wikipedia has clear biases in its content.

>>UncleM+R21
Care to elaborate? What are they missing?

>>luckyl+9C1
The context for this discussion has data demonstrating that articles about women have more space dedicated to their relationships and families than articles about men.

>>UncleM+iH1
That's it? They found that women are more visible than men on Wikipedia. Like the results where they find that woman are less central etc, the differences are rather small. Given that it's a 9:1 split in genders, you'd expect a bit more obvious results if that was the reason for the results and not e.g. society at large, which Wikipedia largely mirrors. And you'd especially not expect that women are more visible than men. Alas, if you so choose, you can of course interpret that as "the male gaze" and the patriarchal conspiracy keeping the women out of the spot light by ... putting them in the spot light.

It seems you focus on one small part of one study and make sweeping declarations about Wikipedia by and large.

>>luckyl+pP1
That's not it. That's one example. Do you want a dissertation?