Wikipedia is actually a good example of where devolution has not happened. It's long been known that Wikipedia has a gender gap, where less than 10% of active u

Wikipedia is actually a good example of where devolution has not happened. It's long been known that Wikipedia has a gender gap, where less than 10% of active users are women. Many reasons have been given for this, most of which are along the lines of "women don't have time" or "they're not interested". I would probably have thought the same, until I started my own site, creating broadly similar crowdsourced content, and ended up with 80% female participation. That meant women are interested, and do have time. I realized that the software choices I had made on my site resulted in more inclusion than Wikipedia. Therefore, the only way to change wikipedia to include more women (and to include more men also) is to change the software so that power is taken away from those who hold it now, and distribute it more widely. In fact I'd go as far as saying Wikipedia is a system that rewards the accumulation of power, more than the creation of quality content. You can read my essay on this here: http://newslines.org/blog/the-sexists-at-the-top-of-wikipedia/ http://newslines.org/blog/the-sexists-at-the-top-of-wikipedi...