Part of a series on |
Discrimination |
---|
Discrimination on wikipedia has been a source of controversy. Slate Magazine has stated that Wikipedia is amazing. But it’s become a rancorous, sexist, elitist, stupidly bureaucratic mess. [1] The lack of diversity has led the National Science Foundation to commission to studies on this problem. [2] One for 132,000 and one for 70,000. [3]
Basis
With 90% of editors on wikipedia being men an unbalance exists.[4] 80% of wikipedians are young, white, childless men. [5] Academics and professionals have urged wikipedia to address the problem of the lack of women on wikipedia.[4] Womens topics are often smaller then mens topics. [4] The content can often be biased, misleading and even sexist. [4] Some methods that have been used was to push groups such as American Novelists into American Female Novelists leading towards a group being unable to be found on general searches. [6] Some men though believe that being proactive in women's topics is discriminatory against men. [7] Discrimination is sometimes blamed on a single rogue editor. [8] It has been hypothesized that the male wikipedian doesn't believe that females belong on their page. [7] The wikipedia page, systematic bias, highlights the problem which is created by shared social and cultural characteristics of most editors. [9] This creates an unbalance on articles written on wikipedia. [10] Black history as a result is often ignored on wikipedia. [11] Maira Liriano director of the Schomburg Center has stated that "There is a gap that exists when it comes to people of color on Wikipedia, both as subjects of articles and as contributors." [12] She also stresed that "Black life matters, and one way you can demonstrate that is by having a really strong presence in Wikipedia and having a voice,"[13] It is stated that it is a two part program of having the entries there on wikipedia of giving people the skill to edit wikipedia. [14]
Leisure
It is believed that old encyclopedia's were written by old European men. [2] Wikipedia was suppposed to change this but the problem exists in the amount of leisure time that is available. [2] Women in general have less leisure time than men. [2] One wikipedia administrator has offered oppinions on why Blacks don't volunteer on wikipedia, this includes blacks don't volunteer, blacks edit towards a black perspective, blacks are oppressed, poorly educated, computer illiterate, and those who are computer literate are too busy to volunteer. [15] The same administrator stated that few blacks are interested in wikipedia enough to edit it. [16] The Bureau of Labor Statistics has stated that African Americans are the second most group in the United States for volunteering. [17] The same administrator who made those comments was highlighted in the article as having been fined while working as an attorney for solicitation. [18] It is stated that hate speech is dealt with swiftly, but the more subtle hate speech is tricky to deal with. [19]
Documented Cases
Authors attempted to document problems on wikipedia have had their articles heavily edited.[6] Libertarian feminist Carol Moore was indefinitely banned over uncivil comments while men she fought against were given a slap on the wrist. [1] There is stated to be a group of individuals called the Unblockables, whom due to their popularity can "get away with murder" on wikipedia. [1] Experienced editors have been known to use terms like BLP, AGF, NOR to get their way on new users in disputes. [1] Complaints have been "boomeranged" onto complaintants who face disciplinary action for complaining. [1] A common tactic by experienced users is to tag new users Single Purpose Accounts to discount their opinions. [20] The abusive relationships between editors has made wikipedia a less welcoming place for women and minorities. [2] Administrator rarely lose their privileges and their actions almost always stand whether fair or not. [20]
Efforts
Efforts have been made via edit a thons to increase minority articles and editors. [2] Schomburg Center for Research in Black Culture has made efforts to increase minority participation on wikipedia. [21] Howard University has also made efforts to increase minority participation. [22] Some have been as large as 40 people. [23] Wikipedia is aware of its goal and hopes to increase the female participation of wikipedia to 25% by 2015. [4] The Whitehouse has even brought forth an editathon to showcase African American STEM prescence on the web. [24] The efforts are a form of activism, but are not rewriting history or putting a spin on it.[25] The ultimate goal is to provide facts so that the perspectives of minority groups will not be silenced. [26]
See also
References
- ^ a b c d e "Wikipedia editing disputes: The crowdsourced encyclopedia has become a rancorous, sexist mess". Slate Magazine.
- ^ a b c d e f "Meet the Editors Fighting Racism and Sexism on Wikipedia". WIRED.
- ^ "Why is Wikipedia so sexist?". New York Post.
- ^ a b c d e "Bustle". bustle.com.
- ^ Deanna Zandt (26 April 2013). "Yes, Wikipedia Is Sexist -- That's Why It Needs You". Forbes.
- ^ a b http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/28/opinion/sunday/wikipedias-sexism.html?_r=0
- ^ a b "Sexism". The Other Sociologist - Analysis of Difference... By Dr Zuleyka Zevallos.
- ^ Amanda Filipacchi (30 April 2013). "Sexism on Wikipedia Is Not the Work of 'a Single Misguided Editor'". The Atlantic.
- ^ http://www.fastcoexist.com/3041572/black-history-matters-so-why-is-wikipedia-missing-so-much-of-it
- ^ http://www.fastcoexist.com/3041572/black-history-matters-so-why-is-wikipedia-missing-so-much-of-it
- ^ http://www.fastcoexist.com/3041572/black-history-matters-so-why-is-wikipedia-missing-so-much-of-it
- ^ http://www.fastcoexist.com/3041572/black-history-matters-so-why-is-wikipedia-missing-so-much-of-it
- ^ http://www.fastcoexist.com/3041572/black-history-matters-so-why-is-wikipedia-missing-so-much-of-it
- ^ http://www.fastcoexist.com/3041572/black-history-matters-so-why-is-wikipedia-missing-so-much-of-it
- ^ examiner.com/article/leading-wikipedian-explains-why-blacks-don-t-volunteer
- ^ examiner.com/article/leading-wikipedian-explains-why-blacks-don-t-volunteer
- ^ examiner.com/article/leading-wikipedian-explains-why-blacks-don-t-volunteer
- ^ http://caselaw.findlaw.com/co-supreme-court/1360976.html
- ^ http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/wikipedias-edit-wars-and-eight-religious-pages-people-cant-stop-editing
- ^ a b "Wikipedia editing disputes: The crowdsourced encyclopedia has become a rancorous, sexist mess". Slate Magazine.
- ^ "Editors to Make Black History Wikipedia Entries More Inclusive - Essence.com". Essence.com.
- ^ http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/us/at-howard-a-historically-black-university-filling-in-wikipedias-gaps-in-color.html?_r=0
- ^ "Growing Army Of Women Take On Wikipedia - Business Insider". Business Insider. 15 February 2014.
- ^ https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/02/23/telling-untold-stories-african-americans-stem
- ^ http://articles.philly.com/2015-03-26/entertainment/60480419_1_new-artists-american-art-philadelphia-museum
- ^ http://articles.philly.com/2015-03-26/entertainment/60480419_1_new-artists-american-art-philadelphia-museum