Wikipedia is only SLIGHTLY less male-dominated than this forum

[Joe Republic]

Interesting BBC article on how the 91%-9% male-female ratio of Wikipedia editors is having an effect on its content and attitude to women who do try and contribute, and profiles some of the women trying to combat this.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Cassius]

Because male knowledge is totally different to female knowledge, obviously. Anyway, this 'problem' is unlikely to be confined to wikipedia, in fact, wikipedia is probably one of the better sites for this type of thing.

[Joe Republic]

Because male knowledge is totally different to female knowledge, obviously.

Ugh.  I love it when sarcastic statements actually end up being close to the truth.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Because male knowledge perspective is totally different to female knowledge perspective, obviously.

[Simfan34]

The fact that Wikipedia has such a long list of pornographic actresses is one of it's weirder parts. I've never thought about it in terms of a gender imbalance before but it makes absolute sense now that I think about it.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Because male knowledge is totally different to female knowledge, obviously. Anyway, this 'problem' is unlikely to be confined to wikipedia, in fact, wikipedia is probably one of the better sites for this type of thing.

Why is "problem" in scare quotes?

Says Mr. Scare Quotes himself.

In any case, I wouldn't say that it's about any inherent difference in "knowledge" so much as focus. Obviously, dudes are going to give more sh#ts about compiling long lists of pornographic actresses than they are about famous Native American women. I don't see any real way of fixing this but for greater female participation. I mean, if an article's true, it's not like you're gonna delete Random Male Nerd's stuff just to create balance.

[Hatman 🍁]

And who is to blame for this?

Wikipedia isn't a capitalist-oriented glass ceiling which is preventing women from entering. It is quite the opposite. Nothing is stopping anyone from making Wikipedia appear more gender neutral. If the author of that article feels discouraged, because the Wiki article she wrote was put in AfD, than she's going to just have to suck it up, just like everyone else. Having articles tagged as articles for speedy deletion is more of a bias against newer editors, and not against women. Perhaps women are more easily discouraged by these things than men?  That thought just reeks in sexism though. I have more faith in women than that.

I think the reason for the gender in balance both on this site and on Wikipedia has more to do with society than our respective sites. Any male-oriented culture is bound to fester when you're at a 90-10 ratio. You can't really blame men for that. It's like, "this place doesn't have any women, so maybe it's safe to talk about tits".

So, if women want Wikipedia to be more gender neutral, they just need to suck it up and start writing articles.
 

[PiMp DaDdy FitzGerald]

Wikipedia is awful so women should be commended for not wasting their time on it.

[CatoMinor]

It's weird but hardly a problem. There is nothing stopping women from being an editor there.