5 ms·

I have an anecdote to share which has (perhaps unfairly) biased my beliefs regarding underrepresented people on Wikipedia. On /r/twoxchromosomes, a profile of

I have an anecdote to share which has (perhaps unfairly) biased my beliefs regarding underrepresented people on Wikipedia. On /r/twoxchromosomes, a profile of a somewhat accomplished (more like John Aaron, less like Alan Turing) woman was posted. In the comments were some six to ten people lamenting that she didn't have a Wikipedia page. I thought perhaps it had been put up for RFDs or something the way they complained about how a man in the same position would have a page. Anyway, so I waited a day to see if they'd do anything and they didn't. The woman in question did deserve a Wikipedia page so I made one, described her story, and added citations. Within the week, various bots had made it pretty. I was then able to go request a picture for her Wikipedia page. I just checked and the page looks pretty good. Lots of people have contributed. Nothing I did was impossible for any of them to do. So why didn't they do it? Why instead did they write absolute reams of comments about the unfairness when they had the tools to fix it? Why are they so helpless? On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog. You can be the change, quietly.

iagovar 8y ago
That's exactly my experience. I contributed to spanish Wikipedia several times. I don't really see the barrier. Yet I read about wikipedia and women again and again.
gsich 8y ago
And even if the page on Wikipedia got deleted (relevance or content issues or whatever) you can at least say that you tried.
baud147258 8y ago
It's a lot of work, you need good sources (better than reddit comment) and write the text; at least it's more work than just complaining on reddit/twitter. Another matter is that adding sources is complicated (at I found the process cumbersome last time I did it).
- el_cujo 8y ago
  I agree that there is definitely a barrier to entry for making wikipedia articles, it definitely takes a little bit of time and effort. What bothers me is in a situation like the person you're replying to described, its hard to feel like the disgust/disappointment with the fact that this person didn't have an article is obviously overstated by the commenters. Yes, making a wikipedia article requires some effort, but not so much that if you cared at all about making one that you couldn't do it in an afternoon or two. Maybe it's an unfair assumption, but it just pushes me to further think that these people who complain about stuff on the internet don't actually care, they just want to win brownie points for appearing to care.
  - baud147258 8y ago
    Also such a thread could be an easy springboard for a collective effort on such an article. One could create the article with an outline and share the link in such conversation, so that people could put their time where their mouth is.
Traster 8y ago
One thing I've noticed with wikipedia is that it has an insanely high barrier to entry. I will never create a wikipedia page for 1 reason: The first time I tried to edit a page was a nightmare. I was doing a degree, looked up some information, followed the source and it was very clear in the source that the equation on the page was wrong. I corrected the equation on the page. It was then reverted. I pointed out in the chat that the page was wrong and the source proved it. I was told the page was already based on the source and unless I could find a new citation to prove what I was claiming the page would stay as it is. So wikipedia is factually wrong on some basic engineering equation, and I walked away because I'm not going to wade through bureaucracy for some charitable change I was making. Over the years I've found out that this is the standard experience for most first time wikipedia contributers. So whilst it may be easy for someone to create a page, that is not the experience for a first time user, and high barriers to entry are a great way of creating an exclusionary environment. What you're describing is a problem not for the people in that thread. It' sa failure of wikipedia that it's created an environment where the average person doesn't feel able to contribute on a topic they know.
- JulianMorrison 8y ago
  And where people whose knowledge is "the system" do feel able to "contribute" on a topic they don't know - but are sufficiently insistent about.
- antientropic 8y ago
  It's absurd to say that Wikipedia has an "insanely high barrier to entry". You click "Edit" and that's it - you don't even have to create an account. It's hard to imagine a lower barrier to entry. Of course, the flip side is that anybody can revert your change as well; your edit is not sacred. I mean, what alternative do you propose? That Wikipedia should never revert edits? Change into Everything2?
  - oriolid 8y ago
    Not auto-reverting fixes to obviously wrong content would be a good start. I had a similar experience with fixing a page where someone had confused kilograms and pounds.
nvrx 8y ago
This is also true for open source projects. You can literally start a widely used project under a pseudonym (if you really feel the need). If it is good, it will be used. It is easier to complain, especially if these days money can be made by complaining.
madshiva 8y ago
Wikipedia should not be a wikipedia of people accomplishing things unless they have done a serious change on the world. Blogger, youtuber shall not having this kind of statue like a trophy of them self. If they want be famous there's plenty of crap social media with like button for them. I also think that celebrity shall not be in wikipedia, wtf people having 10 jobs without any background because you know they are famous and can be DJ, Artiste, Scenarist, and this is like a race of who have more in the BIO of wikipedia. BTW, I want too be immortal on Wikipedia, only some part of elite can
Semkas 8y ago
If a non-programmer critisised some part of Blender or some other large scale open source software project it would be weird to call them hypocritical for not just enacting the change themselves wouldnt it? Seems strange to pretend that there is no barrier to entry to contributing a page to an encyclopedia.
- swebs 8y ago
  >Seems strange to pretend that there is no barrier to entry to contributing a page to an encyclopedia. No, there actually is no barrier to entry. You can go to any page right now, click "edit", and are greeted with a WYSIWYG editor. No programming or markup knowledge required. No registration needed either.
  - Semkas 8y ago
    The barrier to entry is the effort required to create a good and truthfull page.
    - dangerface 8y ago
      Because people with two x chromosomes aren't capable of that?
      - fxbl0i 8y ago
        There are many more biographies of males than of females on Wikipedia. Whatever the reason for that might be is up to debate.
        gsich 8y ago
        Is this good or bad? Maybe because (assumption here) there are more "relevant" males throughout history?
        fxbl0i 8y ago

iagovar 8y ago

That's exactly my experience. I contributed to spanish Wikipedia several times. I don't really see the barrier. Yet I read about wikipedia and women again and again.

gsich 8y ago

And even if the page on Wikipedia got deleted (relevance or content issues or whatever) you can at least say that you tried.

baud147258 8y ago

It's a lot of work, you need good sources (better than reddit comment) and write the text; at least it's more work than just complaining on reddit/twitter. Another matter is that adding sources is complicated (at I found the process cumbersome last time I did it).

el_cujo 8y ago
I agree that there is definitely a barrier to entry for making wikipedia articles, it definitely takes a little bit of time and effort. What bothers me is in a situation like the person you're replying to described, its hard to feel like the disgust/disappointment with the fact that this person didn't have an article is obviously overstated by the commenters. Yes, making a wikipedia article requires some effort, but not so much that if you cared at all about making one that you couldn't do it in an afternoon or two. Maybe it's an unfair assumption, but it just pushes me to further think that these people who complain about stuff on the internet don't actually care, they just want to win brownie points for appearing to care.
- baud147258 8y ago
  Also such a thread could be an easy springboard for a collective effort on such an article. One could create the article with an outline and share the link in such conversation, so that people could put their time where their mouth is.

Traster 8y ago

One thing I've noticed with wikipedia is that it has an insanely high barrier to entry. I will never create a wikipedia page for 1 reason: The first time I tried to edit a page was a nightmare. I was doing a degree, looked up some information, followed the source and it was very clear in the source that the equation on the page was wrong. I corrected the equation on the page. It was then reverted. I pointed out in the chat that the page was wrong and the source proved it. I was told the page was already based on the source and unless I could find a new citation to prove what I was claiming the page would stay as it is. So wikipedia is factually wrong on some basic engineering equation, and I walked away because I'm not going to wade through bureaucracy for some charitable change I was making. Over the years I've found out that this is the standard experience for most first time wikipedia contributers. So whilst it may be easy for someone to create a page, that is not the experience for a first time user, and high barriers to entry are a great way of creating an exclusionary environment. What you're describing is a problem not for the people in that thread. It' sa failure of wikipedia that it's created an environment where the average person doesn't feel able to contribute on a topic they know.

JulianMorrison 8y ago
And where people whose knowledge is "the system" do feel able to "contribute" on a topic they don't know - but are sufficiently insistent about.
antientropic 8y ago
It's absurd to say that Wikipedia has an "insanely high barrier to entry". You click "Edit" and that's it - you don't even have to create an account. It's hard to imagine a lower barrier to entry. Of course, the flip side is that anybody can revert your change as well; your edit is not sacred. I mean, what alternative do you propose? That Wikipedia should never revert edits? Change into Everything2?
- oriolid 8y ago
  Not auto-reverting fixes to obviously wrong content would be a good start. I had a similar experience with fixing a page where someone had confused kilograms and pounds.

nvrx 8y ago

This is also true for open source projects. You can literally start a widely used project under a pseudonym (if you really feel the need). If it is good, it will be used. It is easier to complain, especially if these days money can be made by complaining.

madshiva 8y ago

Wikipedia should not be a wikipedia of people accomplishing things unless they have done a serious change on the world. Blogger, youtuber shall not having this kind of statue like a trophy of them self. If they want be famous there's plenty of crap social media with like button for them. I also think that celebrity shall not be in wikipedia, wtf people having 10 jobs without any background because you know they are famous and can be DJ, Artiste, Scenarist, and this is like a race of who have more in the BIO of wikipedia. BTW, I want too be immortal on Wikipedia, only some part of elite can

Semkas 8y ago

If a non-programmer critisised some part of Blender or some other large scale open source software project it would be weird to call them hypocritical for not just enacting the change themselves wouldnt it? Seems strange to pretend that there is no barrier to entry to contributing a page to an encyclopedia.

swebs 8y ago
>Seems strange to pretend that there is no barrier to entry to contributing a page to an encyclopedia. No, there actually is no barrier to entry. You can go to any page right now, click "edit", and are greeted with a WYSIWYG editor. No programming or markup knowledge required. No registration needed either.
- Semkas 8y ago
  The barrier to entry is the effort required to create a good and truthfull page.
  - dangerface 8y ago
    Because people with two x chromosomes aren't capable of that?
    - fxbl0i 8y ago
      There are many more biographies of males than of females on Wikipedia. Whatever the reason for that might be is up to debate.
      - gsich 8y ago
        Is this good or bad? Maybe because (assumption here) there are more "relevant" males throughout history?
        fxbl0i 8y ago