Who is Writing Women’s History?
By Judy Silver on May 10, 2009 at 9:00 AM in Feminism, Women
From The New Agenda.
During Women’s History Month, I saw many comments about school curricula being deficient regarding women in part because (with some note able exceptions like Mercy Otis Warren) traditional history books have been written mostly by men. Well, it’s happening again. Today, when our children need to research a topic, where do they turn? Wikipedia. And who is writing Wikipedia? Mostly men. Women make up only 13% of Wikipedia contributors, according to a new survey.
Commenting on the phenomenon to Reuters, Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Sue Gardner said:
I know that an editorial initiative is only as rich, and as thoughtful, and as intelligent as the people who contribute to it, right? Wikipedia currently is contributed to primarily by young, male geeks, right? Really, really smart, really earnest kids. I want to broaden that out a little bit. That’s my goal. I don’t worry about that, but I’d like to see more women contribute, I’d like to see more older people contribute. There are people who have spent their entire lives developing expertise and accruing knowledge. I want them to give it back.
Blogger Jen Nedeau
Blogger Jen Nedeau at change.org mused:
Hmm - it seems that we have yet another online example where women are not feeling very welcome to share their ideas, their voice and their intellect. Wikipedia is a naturally contentious site and while I’m sure not everyone - male or female - enjoys an online edit war, it is yet another example of how male dominated the internet space has become. I’m not suggesting there is anyone to blame for this gender discrepancy, but just as the Second Wavers fought for more voices on the Op-Ed pages of major newspapers - it is just as important to have the female perspective of history on sites like Wikipedia that inform millions of people everyday on history, pop culture, politics and geography.
Martha Saxton, associate professor at Amherst College, is one woman who is stepping into the breach, making writing or revising Wiki articles on women in history a requirement of her Women’s History courses.
So what do you think, readers? How important is it that history be written by a gender-balanced crew? How important is the Wikipedia medium as opposed to more academic publications and textbooks? Have you ever written for Wikipedia, and if not why not? What would make contributing more attractive to women?
(List Price: $27.95 - Your Price: $15.47)
By Sarah Palin (Release date: November 17. 2009)
It seems to me that Wikipedia is about as gender-neutral as a site can be. Anyone is welcome to participate. If women are not feeling very welcome, the fault is certainly not with Wikipedia. Having said that, Martha Saxton’s step of requiring writing or revising Wiki articles about “women in history” in her Women’s History classes would seem to be a proactive step to bringing more women into the Wiki process.
Wikipedia is a wonderful idea, and a very useful tool. The more that universities encourage students to participate in the process, the better it will be for everyone.
until we have a neutral as a living example of a valid gender .. there will be no such thing as “gender neutrality” What Martha Saxton is doing is a great idea !!
As I understand it, “gender-neutral” as a policy means not favoring one gender over the other–giving both genders equal opportunity and equal compensation. I think this is a worthy goal.
The “discreet” participation of women, especially the not so young ones, may have to do with the cinderella complex.
Kudos to Martha Saxton, very good idea.
great idea in fact.
I’d always heard, “History is His(with emphasis on his) Story”. I loved History, it was my favorite subject in school. I wanted to be a Historian, but was discouraged from doing so. I never got below an A. I loved researching. I still do. Like Johnny 5, feed me. I got so much teasing when that movie came out. So much so when my baby sisters, twins wanted a story I read the encyclopedia to them. For their naps and at bedtime every day. They still remember that. We never made it through the whole set. Anyway (before I blah, blah, blah) I am one of the 13% that have contributed. It surprises me to know that we’re such a low percentage of contributors.
Is this The New Agenda article?
I saw this post first in The New Agenda, for 5/5. One of the reasons I’m pointing that out is to draw attention to the fine comments there following the article, information I’d never seen before.
And google finally did recognize women - on Mothers’ Day. Hmph.
Well, there’s no wonder we’re in this state. After all, we can summon up a “beer summit” at the drop of a hat when race is involved; but, we’ve yet to have even the slightest discussion about the cruel and bitter gender-bashing that occurred during the last presidential campaign — particularly that which occurred against Hillary Clinton from within her own party. Until this country sees gender differences (and institutionalized deficits) as a valid issue, and, at least on the same level as race, we’ll continue to work at a deficit.
Are you kidding me?!?
The internet is entirely gender neutral, anyone can pretend to be any gender, age, race etc, and no one can tell.
If wikipedia has less women contributing that is entirely the responsibility of women.