Only 13% of Wikipedia Contributors Are Women, Study Says By Andrew LaValleeA broad new survey of Wikipedia users found that only 13% of the online encyclopedia’s contributors are women.The November survey, which had some 175,000 valid responses, was conducted in multiple languages by the Wikimedia Foundation, the nonprofit that operates the site, and United Nations University’s tech-research program MERIT. They presented the initial findings last week at Wikimania, an annual conference held this year in Buenos Aires. A comprehensive report is scheduled for November.Of the 53,888 respondents who said they contribute to Wikipedia, only 6,814 were women. The male/female ratio is closer among those who read entries but don’t write or edit them: 69% men to 31% women.The average respondent age hovers in the twentysomethings. Men tend to be a few years older, at 26, while women were 24 on average.Altruism and fact-checking are the top motivations of contributors, the study found. About 73% indicated “I like the idea of sharing knowledge and want to contribute to it,” while 69% said “I saw an error I wanted to fix.”Expertise varies by topic area. Technical and scientific entries have the highest participation by self-identified experts, while geographic and place-related pages have relatively low levels of expertise but more contributors.Roughly one fifth of respondents said they hold a graduate degree, with contributors more likely to have a Masters degree (19%) or a Ph.D. (4.4%) than readers (17% and 2.3%, respectively).When asked what would make them more likely to contribute to the site, the top response was if “I knew there were specific topic areas that needed my help” (41%), followed by “It was clear to me that other people would benefit from my efforts” (36%). Thirty-two percent marked “Other/don’t know/don’t want to say.”Among the reasons for not contributing, many respondents cited time constraints, satisfaction with just reading entries or simply not knowing how to edit the pages. One quarter, however, said they’re afraid of making a mistake “and getting ‘in trouble’ for it.” _________________________________________________________________Why do you think women contribute so little? To a certain degree I think the same statistic could be applied to our little site.
-
Women Only Contribute 13%
-
that could explain why there's so much BULLSH*T on wikipedia LOLsorry...
-
ROFL!!!
-
Originally Posted By: JapanFan14that could explain why there's so much BULLSH*T on wikipedia LOLsorry... Hmmm...wonder how you would know that unless you spent a lot of time there yourself. It could be that the 13% contribute more than their share of whatever it is you're referring to by "bull-shit", but then it would be cow-shit, wouldn't it.
-
Well that explains why the Pornography page waffles on about:
* Forms
o Adult theater
o Carnography
o Cartoon Pornography
o Erotic art
o Erotica
o Women's erotica
o Glamour photography
o Internet pornography
o Non-nude pornography
o Pornographic film* Lists
o List of authors of erotic works
o List of gay pornographic magazines
o List of men's magazines
o List of porn stars
o List of pornographic book publishers
o List of pornographic movie studios
o List of pornographic magazines
o List of pornographic sub-genres
o List of pornography laws by region* People and groups
o Anti-pornography movement
o Pornographic actor
o Pro-sex feminism
o Sex worker* Other
o Adult documentary
o Copine scale
o Censorship
o Lust
o Pornography addiction
o Pornography by region
o Porn chic
o Secret Museum, Naples
o Sex in advertising -
Originally Posted By: A.W.
Hmmm...I would have to disgree with that survey :confused:
how do you disagree with survey results?
-
My thoughts exactly Abi haha
-
off topic....Love the new Avitar A.W. It Rocks!
-
Wikipedia is not resourceful? Huh?I don't understand. You're saying the info contained in Wikipedia is not very good?
-
Actually yes and no. For both high school and college we're forbidden from using any information from Wikipedia as a reference or citation because it's not dependable. I've looked up some things on Wikipedia and the information was extremely false. It's not like the info isn't good but it's not really reliable.
-
Well yes, of course you can't use it as a source since... pretty much anybody can contribute to the info, right or wrong. It's up to those who ARE knowledgable to correct the wrong. However, Wikipedia in the general sense is a wealth of quick information. I've spent hours reading stuff and branching off into other tangents that I never would have done otherwise.
-
I recall a year or so ago someone checked the accuracy of wikipedia against other encyclopaedias, and found it was about the same. In my field the quality is good, and I find it useful. It's not peer-reviewed before publication and doesn't have the authority of primary literature, but most encyclopaedias aren't peer-reviewed either. The fact that many college teachers won't accept it as a source, but will accept other non-peer-reviewed sources, I put down to snobbery.
-
Good point...IDK.. I think in many subjects the information should be fairly accurate as there are many out there who will correct bad info.However if there is some obscure topic that is rarely viewed, then there are chances that it hasn't/isn't reviewed and corrected.
-
Wikipedia, like any encyclopedia, is just a concentration of information... other people's information. So I agree that it has similar validity and should be a reasonable, but not necessarily sole, source for school research.Most articles in WP contain attribution data for cross checking anyway. I think Wikipedia and the internet in general have added a new dimension to today's students' research skills. Back in the old days, a student would go to the library, grab Britannica and never even remotely consider questioning the information contained therein. Now, students can and do regularly question any "authoritative source" and seek further information. That makes for a much keener mind in the long run.
-
Britannica is hardly that great.
-
there is an amusing irony in that, thanks.it further serves to demonstrate the point that no single source is infallible.
