Women and Wikipedia. Sexism, hostility, harassment and only 9% of contributors are women

[CircleSquareCircleSquare]

I was shocked to read on the “Cis as a slur” thread that only 9% of contributors (globally) to Wikipedia are women.

The Wikipedia article for “Woman” now includes gender
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman

As @AnitaLovesVictor pointed out
The wiki entry had that line removed yesterday, with the comment:

"With no citation or definition talks about people of the male sex, who are, according to any objective and biological definition, and also common speech, men, being women. No citation. Furthermore, refers to 'intersex and transgender conditions'. These are not comprable. Intersex people have conditions affecting normal sexual development, trans-identified males are sexually normal men who 'feel they are women'. There is no evidence for gender identity. Keep ideology out of encyclopaedias.)"

6 minutes later it was restored. So the TRAs are all over this. hmm

Here are some interesting articles
Harvard Business Review - Why do so few women edit Wikipedia?
hbr.org/2016/06/why-do-so-few-women-edit-wikipedia

Wikipedia’s Hostility to Women
www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/

Wikipedia is a source that whilst not taken seriously in academia etc., is referenced constantly and is a go-to rescourse for great swathes of an internet based society.

Would it be worth talking about how we women can edit more articles (not even anything to do with the self ID etc debate) and support each other in doing so?

Here are some interesting articles
Harvard Business Review - Why do so few women edit Wikipedia?

hbr.org/2016/06/why-do-so-few-women-edit-wikipedia

Wikipedia’s Hostility to Women

www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/10/how-wikipedia-is-hostile-to-women/411619/

Well, it looks to me that that is where women are headed, in a future with no exemptions, no redress of balance with awards and aws, without men being included and no right to space away from men.

......and no safe statisitics to keep track of what is going on.

Trans related threads are closely watched on Wikipedia by a small cluster of TRAs and MRAs. As are any other topics related to women and feminism. Facts are not important on Wikipedia, the only thing that matters are citations. There are also rules around things like people not being allowed to write or edit pages about themselves, but all you really need to do it is a sock puppet. I wouldn't trust anything on Wikipedia on any of these topics, it's a complete mess.

So do we become editors and tackle it or do we just let them have it?

Transactivists have conspired to erase gender critical feminism (real feminism) from Wiki. Screenshots prove it.

I think its reasonable to anticipate that Wikipedia contributors may not be especially representative of the population in a number of ways, including sex!

what on earth is going on here later in Wiki 'woman'?
"Also, there are some gender-related illnesses that are found more frequently or exclusively in women, e.g., breast cancer, cervical cancer, or ovarian cancer."
women have cervical and ovarian cancer and this is due to their sex!

Here's the clicky link for the woman wiki

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woman

I was thinking of trying to edit it to include criticism of the inclusion of transwomen. I don't have any experience editing it, and will have to teach myself first. Plus find good citations (anybody? please?).

Will I be wasting my time then? Will it be scrubbed immediately?

It just really irks me to imagine thousands of students copying and pasting the 'non-biological' definition of woman. It's indoctrination.

Evidence of deliberate Wikipedia erasure of radical feminists:

twitter.com/radfemfatale/status/938302748096892928?s=20

Thank you Eresh

Thanks Eresh. Emphasises the need to counter.....

Shocking isn't it?

I think these pages are well monitored and controlled by trans activists using bots (I don't really understand exactly how that works to be honest).
It would take a co ordinated campaign to get some balance back.

It's control of the narrative.

It's control of the narrative.

It is. And it was lost before most of us (meaning the general public) were even aware it existed. I just wish I had been more curious and listened to the dissenters sooner.

I think there's enough evidence and general distrust of Wikipedia to enable key players to ignore it.

I think there's enough evidence and general distrust of Wikipedia to enable key players to ignore it.

Sorry, I’m not quite following you? Which key players? I’m just worried about it becoming the prevailing dogma in public consciousness by stealth, or not-so stealth...

Nobody sensible ‘trusts’ Wikipedia, but an awful lot of people still use it.

I mean the people will change the law. Sorry if that's not clear.

Oh ffs. The people who will change the law.

Hmm..OK I understand. I'm getting less worried about the law, and increasingly concerned about social change.

Not saying the law is irrelevant, obviously. Just not the be-all and end-all.

I agree, and I think if the GRA gets kicked into the long grass that's fine, but won't stop the flow social creep. We need it not just kicked into the long grass but the government actually saying they're dropping it, or they're making a point of keeping sex -segregated spaces and sports. Then the social change would slow. Eventually everyone would wake up.

Twitter is going the same way. I just read this:

So twitter suspended me for 7 days for saying men need to expand the definition of male to include feminine presenting men. Well done twitter. Well done.

Yet there's a particular man on there indulging in astounding targeted bullying and harassment of women, and that's fine by Twitter.

Twitter is no place for women right now.

My Twitter account is 'locked' due to God knows what. I don't write abuse, unless calling LM 'he' counts as that. Not sure if I will bother about it. Better fish to fry.

I googled Cathy Brennan today and the first choice was Wikipedia - Rational. I have no idea what the Rational bit means as it was totally irrational and full of invective. It referred to her as a terf and was generally vile. Is it a section for opinions?
I tend to use wiki for quick facts but will probably avoid from now on.