14 ms·

Kate Middleton’s Wedding Gown Demonstrates Wikipedia’s Woman Problem

217 points by soupboy 14y ago

nsns 14y ago
Having an article marked for deletion means nothing, it happens all the time, and is one of the ways power flows in Wikipedia's anarchic domain (and I'm not sure this kind of power play is really gendered, it is more of a conservative, restraining, force). While I highly regard Wikipedia's amazing and quite successful project, and hope there will be more editors that are female (oriented, not necessarily biological), there is still a lot that's not there, perhaps will never be, yet matters for various cultures and localities around the world, Wikipedia English has a built in bias (hint: English), and it's not a gendered one.
- pbhjpbhj 14y ago
  There's a bot I think that marks new articles as speedy delete by default. At least I wrote a stub, marked as such, and seconds after completion got a deletion notice.
  - mjn 14y ago
    Weird. Did it include any references? I haven't had these problems people are mentioning in the past few years, and I create articles now and then. They're usually not even really long ones: 1-2 paragraphs, 1-2 sources cited. Usually on historical stuff, e.g. ancient Greek archaeological sites, or minor 18th/19th-century government officials, scientists, or inventors. The most common outcome is that I never hear from anybody. The articles don't get nominated for deletion, and neither do they get improved by anyone else.
    - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
      It had one ref and was marked {{stub}} - for a series of public art pieces relating to two major public events in a UK city. The event only really reaches 2 or 3 major city areas for 3 months every couple of years; I don't bother looking but I guess it's not WP:NOTABLE or whatever the tag is. I'm not bothered really; better to delete them then than when I'd actually written the article.
    - lizzard 14y ago
      Add a biography of some female scientists and writers and see what happens. Then watch the pages.
      - mjn 14y ago
        That's actually something I do do! One of my on-again, off-again projects, which now that you mentioned it I should return to, is going through the book American Women Historians, 1700s–1900s: A Biographical Dictionary, and adding articles on the ones that're missing (which is a lot of them), especially those where I can find 2-3 additional sources to use for an article (which is still a lot of them). So far nobody's tried to delete my contributions. There are also some more organized projects. There are a few dozen people at WikiProject Women's History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women%27s_History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women%27s..., and Wikimedia hired a paid Community Fellow to focus on gender-gap issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
w1ntermute 14y ago
This brings up a very interesting point - can anyone think of topics that Wikipedia has inadvertently omitted thanks to the narrow section of society that contributes significant amounts of new content to the site? There's been a lot of talk in recent years about how the "initial work" of adding information to Wikipedia is mostly done, and that from here on out, it's going to be mainly about adding new content as it's created (new events, people, companies, etc.). But it seems possible that myopia on the part of editors could be having inadvertent effects.
- jmduke 14y ago
  World history. The article for the XBOX 360: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBOX_360 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBOX_360 The article for the Republic of Ragusa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ragusa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ragusa Wikipedia's editors (or, perhaps more accurately, humanity) have a bias in thinking details in the present are more important than details in the past.
  - w1ntermute 14y ago
    That's very amusing, because the exact opposite bias can be found in traditional encyclopedias: > The other day I read a dozen thousand words about Assyrian archeology in my DVD copy of Encyclopedia Britannica, but when I wanted to read about the Xbox 360, there wasn't even a single entry, so I gave up. http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/12/3154537/paul-miller-offline-hard-to-binge http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/12/3154537/paul-miller-offlin... > Wikipedia's editors (or, perhaps more accurately, humanity) have a bias in thinking details in the present are more important than details in the past. I don't know if that's entirely true. I think it significantly depends on what those "details" are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games
    - gaius 14y ago
      The test of time takes time...
  - 14y ago
lien 14y ago
Wikipedia is an interesting place. I am not sure what classifies articles for deletion, but it feels like only people who live in the Internet industry take part in actively running and editing the articles. I don't think of it as a male dominant community (even though I am female), but it feels like to me that only for people who are only care about stuff they know. It feels more like a closed minded community than having a woman problem. My previous company was a chip and Wi-Fi module startup (ZeroG Wireless). I had requested our company name to be created around 2009. At that point, we had been around for 4 years and we had taken $30m in funding. However, we were never granted a section on Wikipedia. On the other hand, plenty of internet companies who were around than launch much shorter than that and their names are currently on Wikipedia, for example, Pownce. I am sure that many others are granted a Wikipedia entry for being around less, accomplishing less than what we did. The only difference is that these were Internet startups and ZeroG was not. Some people simply need to wake up and stop living in their own bubble. Let's hope that one day they can realize that others do care about things that the community doesn't care.
- philwelch 14y ago
  > My previous company was a chip and Wi-Fi module startup (ZeroG Wireless). I had requested our company name to be created around 2009. At that point, we had been around for 4 years and we had taken $30m in funding. However, we were never granted a section on Wikipedia. There are a lot of ways to get yourself discredited on Wikipedia, but trying to get an article written about yourself, your company, your band, or anything else you are intimately involved in is the most reliable.
  - lien 14y ago
    I never attempted to write about my company. I submitted a request to have my company created as an entry. You need to have your company name created first before anyone can write about you.
    - philwelch 14y ago
      I never said you did attempt to write about your company. > You need to have your company name created first before anyone can write about you. No you don't. If you're logged in and you go to a blank page, you can just start writing something there, unless the page has been specifically blocked from page creation because someone keeps putting spam there. I would say that the combination of not knowing how Wikipedia works, asking other people to do something for you, and on top of that, trying to get an article written about yourself, your company, your band, or anything else you are intimately involved with is a perfect way to get yourself ignored and discredited.
haberman 14y ago
I am frequently surprised to find Wikipedia articles about very narrow, highly-specialized technical concepts. For example, there is a Wikipedia page about iso646.h in the C language standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iso646.h http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iso646.h). If you're wondering why you never heard of iso646.h before, it's because it is only useful if you are programming in C on a system that does not support cutting-edge characters like "&" or "|". This is esoterica that does not have any measurable impact on the world. And this isn't even an article about ISO 646 per se, it's about a header file. I find such articles extremely useful, so I'm not advocating that they be deleted. But surely the wedding gown worn by a British Monarch who is widely known for her fashion sense is at least as relevant to the world at large.
- johncoltrane 14y ago
  Judging by the number of magazine covers and news segments devoted to this woman, I'd say it's a lot more relevant. I agree with the current top poster: they shouldn't delete anything that doesn't conform to general rules of objectivity.
- vacri 14y ago
  That kind of info in the linked article really should be in an aggregated article, not it's own page. It barely qualifies as a stub article.
- mjn 14y ago
  I think a lot of these articles fall into the "benign neglect" category. They collect dust in a corner somewhere, and most people who run across them don't understand the content enough to feel like they should offer an opinion. It's with recent pop culture where everyone has an opinion one way or the other. There's also a bit more scrutiny given to anything about currently living people, as opposed to articles on inanimate technical subjects, because of the potential for libel, though I'm not sure that was relevant here.
- njharman 14y ago
  > relevant to the world at large That is not a good encyclopedic. Encyclopedia's are to document and archive for current and future generations. They are a store of knowledge for knowledge's sake. You include stuff that may not be relevant today because it may be relevant tomorrow.
aw3c2 14y ago
Isn't it sexism to say that linux distros are for men and wedding gowns for women?
- saraid216 14y ago
  Yes. Isn't it silly to ask a stupid question for the sake of making a rhetorical point?
  - aw3c2 14y ago
    I am interested in what others think, so no, it was not stupid to ask a question. clarification: Yes, honestly. I don't get most of the sexism debates.
    - saraid216 14y ago
      > I don't get most of the sexism debates. I could tell. If you'd like to explain where you're coming from, that might invite a less snarky reply since you'd become a human being with a unique background and the potential for critical thought. Perhaps someone will even help explain to you what you "don't get". You might even have the chance to find out what others think. As it is, the only thought I have is that you asked a stupid and inflammatory question. I shared that thought with you. Are you actually interested? Because walking into a bar fight and punching someone in the nose is not the right way to find out how it started.
  - irahul 14y ago
    > Isn't it silly to ask a stupid question for the sake of making a rhetorical point? silly, stupid, rhetorical. Three insults in one reply - I am impressed. /s How is your reply any more relevant than his comment?
    - saraid216 14y ago
      > How is your reply any more relevant than his comment? Gadzooks, you're right! His comment wasn't just silly; it was irrelevant, too! I missed that. Thanks for catching it!
Zenst 14y ago
I have noticed alot of information/articles upon wikipedia get deleted/flagged for deletion at a rather zelous rate and in that I have one question: WHY, if they are not superceeded or and made redundant then personaly I feel they should never be removed. This may be some form of gender bias, though I have not looked up male sports items upon wiki. The dress does have a nice backstory from what I read in the news and was a pretty big historical event as far as wedding go and in that factualy it will not be superceeded in that regard. So the question is realy for me is wikipedia a source of knowledge/history/facts or is it biased towards flavour of the month(FOTM) and if it is the later then perhaps they need to revaluate there priorities. As to a solution, maybe they could have all articles that are flagged for deletion, need approval by one male and one female. Though in that I will say that some males have a female mindset and some females have a male mindset and in that they should be able to express and vote based upon there mindset as apposed to some physical gender. There is no golden solution though I do feel the zelous removal of articles be curtailed and a approach of only removing non-factualy/incorrect articles be the approach taken and in that, there will be less issues and references to items that have been removed. I hope they resolve a amicle approach or I fear they will only spawn a womenpedia based site for women only and that would be a sad day and a true wakeup call to the insanity and directions being taken. Look at business for examples how issolation impacts - you will see many females who state they promote women in business and yet you never see a man saying I promote males in business. One is accepted and the other is sexist. But sadly they mearly add fuel to the issue and instead of addressing the issue, I personaly feel they exacerbate the issue. Though if you were or felt persecuted - you to would stand up and do something about it, if you were strong person. Not all people are strong in defending there morals and fairness and in that it does highlight women are just as right to feel persecuted. Though I do wish the approach of "Supporting fairness in buisness" was adopted as apposed to "Supporting women in buisness" was the standard they promoted as it is just that - about fairness and that can and does work both ways on many level. Much respect to Mr Wales for spotting this issue and taking onboard, a true sign of a fair person. I also have no interests in make-up and wedding dresses and the like, but I fully respect they are facts of the World and in that have as much right as any linux distro to be there, I'm not forced to look up those articles, nor am I forced to read linux distros on the site but having that option is something I compeletly and utterly support and to do otherwise would be unfair and that is something that I feel uncomfortable with and hopefully this clear and documented bias can be eliminated in any form it takes in life, be it race, sex, orientation or origins. We are all humans and in that we strive to be better every generation we spawn. Humanity is wonderful when it works and aporant when it fails. Lets stand up and count everybody.
kijin 14y ago
Every time a "problem" like this makes the news, the real problem always seems to be overzealous deletionists with their ridiculously strict notability requirement. Gender imbalance might be a problem, but it's not a problem to the same extent as notability-based deletionism is. Notability is an extremely vague standard, a perfect recipe for abuse and selective enforcement. A fair and efficient editorial process should strive to replace vague rules with clearer counterparts whenever possible. Honestly, I cannot think of a good reason to delete any article at all, unless it's obviously fraudulent, marketing-oriented, illegal, or obscene according to a widely accepted definition of obscenity. All of these standards can be applied fairly strictly, and with much less vagueness than notability. - It's not like Wikipedia is short of disk space to store a few million extra text articles. - The argument that it would be too difficult to maintain lots of extra articles is also weak, because not every article needs to be regularly edited, and more articles on niche topics might actually attract more editors. - No, we won't end up with a page for every John Doe and his cat. That's just alarmism. Besides, if something like that ever becomes a problem, a better response would be a prohibition on self-promotion or some other clear guideline, rather than a vague requirement of notability. - If these deletionists are just being OCD and wanting everything to be tidy and clean and under their editorial control, I would say that they need to take a break. In fact, it's possible that people with certain psychological traits self-select for Wikipedia editorship. But the kind of intolerance and self-centered narrow-mindedness that overzealous deletionists exhibit doesn't suit the spirit of a collaborative online project. Keep your OCD to your own home/office and away from public spaces, thank you very much. Right now, I get the impression that it's too easy to flag something for deletion and too difficult to counter the deletionist argument, especially since the deletionists are so familiar with editorial procedures. This inequality needs to change. The burden of proof should be on people who want to remove information from the Web, not on those who want to keep it. Isn't that the same principle that we fought tooth and nail to uphold against the onslaught of SOPA, ACTA, etc?
- ShardPhoenix 14y ago
  Instead of notability, I'd prefer criteria of verifiability (ie there must be reliable sources) and objectivity (ie no marketing or self-promotion).
wololo 14y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in... more discussion at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism
conradfr 14y ago
Some years ago I cleaned up some random biology article vandalized with lots of not-even-subtle profanity. It was immediately reverted by some editor and I had to insist that he reads my modification to get it approved. It was the last time I tried to edit anything in WP, as I always had this kind of problem. I read it a lot like anyone else and donate small money every year but each time I read about the behind the scene, I'm appalled.
- Danieru 14y ago
  I wrote a small article on an obscure piece of software, I even studied the wiki syntax and added an infobox & image. It got fast track deleted the next day. Wikipedia has reached an equilibrium point between articles that cannot be deleted and deletionist desires to delete everything. In many cases the deciding factor, or the demand to the deletionists' supply, is public outrage.
mkramlich 14y ago
I see arguments for and against allowing Middleton's dress to be covered. For: it meets the criteria of being a widely covered and notable event, documented by numerous major media entities, and associated with a historical event of the ruling royal party of England. Against: yes it's just ephemeral celebrity gossip chit-chat that gives certain people (most likely, mostly women or perhaps some gay men) a feeling of warm fuzzies when thinking about it or fantasizing about it. So yes that feels wrong for Wikipedia because there are plenty of other websites and mediums for that sort of thing. In other words, the problem is that it both belongs, and doesn't belong. And they need to resolve that paradox, maybe setting a new precedent or revising their official criteria. I think the "not enough women" thing is just a side issue. And one that has an easy and blatantly obvious solution: if you're a woman and you want to become a Wikipedia contributor or moderator, then go do it. If enough of you do it, then the gender balance will shift notably. If enough of you are not interested, then it won't. There's nothing inherently wrong with either state of affairs, it would be just the way it is. For example, I don't think it's "wrong" that the overwhelming majority (99.8%+) of hair cut folks at Great Clips over the years, in my direct experience, have been women, because that probably just reflects the natural level of interest of men and women in working in that role. I don't feel oppressed or excluded. If I wanted to work there cutting hair, or have a man cut my hair, I'd make it happen, end of story, and if not, or either way, I'd live with it and move on.
- icebraining 14y ago
  I'm pretty sure those "feelings of warm fuzzies" move a lot of money in the fashion industry. The influence that even details like that have when we're dealing with celebrities shouldn't be disregarded. if you're a woman and you want to become a Wikipedia contributor or moderator, then go do it. I think the point is that they did, and their contributions got deleted.
vacri 14y ago
Because all women love dresses, just like all geeks love linux.
- streptomycin 14y ago
  Because I wish there were no gender biases, I will pretend that just because not 100% of a gender is completely monolithic, that must mean that any gender bias is disproved.
  - vacri 14y ago
    Seriously, honestly, the majority of women could not be stuffed about celebrity wedding dresses. Sure, more women are into it than men, I won't argue about that. But I'll be damned if 'caring about celebrity wedding dresses' is classed as a 'women's issue', because, frankly, it's not. No more than 'caring about racing cars' are a 'men's issue', and most men get through life not thinking about them much, and just as many find them boring as interesting. If I was forbidden to talk about racing at work, I wouldn't go around yawping about how my boss had problems with "men's issues". It's not a women's issue, it's a fashion issue. Note that I'm talking about real, actual men and women here; not the stereotypes that folks have in their head, but the actual people they want to do editorial work. A better example: What about guns? The gender balance when it comes to vocal, visible people who like guns is heavily skewed towards males, but people don't call out gun control advocates as causing trouble for 'men's issues', or 'trying to silence men'. The issue here is less 'geeks hate women, and so women's articles suffer in wikipedia', and more 'geeks care less about subjects outside their bailiwick, like fashion, and so those articles suffer in wikipedia'. The question is really 'how do we loosen the reins of the geeks a little', not 'there's not enough Genital Type V amongst our editors'.
    - streptomycin 14y ago
      So what would you call a "men's issue" or a "women's issue"? Or do you think that no such issues exist?
      - 14y ago
konstruktor 14y ago
Articles like this make me angry. Wikipedia is one of the most important, if not the most important, example of digital commons, created by an enourmous amount of volunteer work. 91% of those doing this work are male, according to the article. Now a group that has contributed only a small fraction of the work for a decade complains about being underrepresented? This is not the military, which had actual barriers of entry for women, this is Wikipedia, which you could edit without an account only a few years ago. At that time it was a true, anonymous meritocracy, as opposed to a mailing list where your name gives away your gender and may subject you to gender discrimination.
- Mvandenbergh 14y ago
  Except of course that having articles deleted is a barrier to entry.
  - konstruktor 14y ago
    Which would have been a gender-neutral barrier had women contributed a similar share of work and dedication in the early days and thus achieved similar influence.
    - aristus 14y ago
      Influence has a way of perpetuating itself, especially when its protected by nerdy little enclaves. So you are saying that because women (or mexicans or furries) did not contribute in the past, they now deserve to be excluded in the future?
      - konstruktor 14y ago
        No, I would hope to see more work from (and proportionately more influence for) women on Wikipedia. But the article presents what seems to be the result of past inaction, back when Wikipedia was a meritocracy, as a Women's Rights issue. Yes, there is a gender bias on Wikipedia now, and even chauvinistic behavior. We should get rid of both, if possible, which may be difficult as such an environment is not inviting to women.
nsns 14y ago
Wikipedia's stated aim, to make information "freely" available, has no gender bias; it doesn't ask for it before serving its content - in marked contrast to other services (Google? Facebook? certainly the various ad services) which might structure their content according to a user's gender. However, if Wikipedia has another aim - to make the scope of its content bias-free, then I think it has not thought it thoroughly yet: even structuring information as encyclopedia entries is inherently biased and restrictive (not necessarily bad though). Correlating Wikipedia's contributors' sex to an assumed gender bias in its scope (who gets to decide the articles' 'gender'?), as Wales does, proves how naïve such a project currently is.
sbmassey 14y ago
Why not simply accept that wikipedia has a particular bias, and set up your own wiki - fashionpedia perhaps - if you want to create articles that wikipedia doesn't accept? Wikipedia has become a success because of its culture. It should be very careful about changing that based on the demands of the entitled multitudes.
- Mvandenbergh 14y ago
  Because Wikipedia aspires not to have such biases. If Wikipedia was linuxdistropedia then no-one would think it was odd that it was focused on obscure distros and didn't care for articles about embroidery or the history of Islamic jurisprudence. But it aspires to be a universal encyclopaedia.
alan_cx 14y ago
Why are any articles deleted, unless they are factually wrong? Censorship. Who is to say what will be important in the future? Censorship. Who is to say that people will want to read? Censorship. There should not be any notion of importance. All knowledge is important. What I find important is as valid as what any one else values as important. Frankly, and to my shame this is the first time I have given any thought to it, I am disgusted that something which, IMHO, is supposed to be an unbiased information repository actually deletes knowledge. To me, this is the most disturbing case of censorship I have ever thought about. Government censorship is expected, bad news, sure but expected. But this is supposed to be above that. How can they bleat on about SOPA etc, then allow a small number of geeks to tell me I can't see an article about some princesses dress? Wikipedia is NOT Geekpedia. And it should not be censoring knowledge. Quite sad actually. My Wikipedia love bubble just burst. :(
- 21sappers 14y ago
  I could not agree with you more.
- jeffdavis 14y ago
  Censorship is when you try to prevent a class of ideas or knowledge from being communicated in any medium. Dictators try to stop criticism, regardless of whether it's by pamphlet or radio broadcast. That is not the issue we're talking about at all. We're talking about editing a specific body of work (Wikipedia) to exclude things deemed unfit. In fact, the motto of the NY Times is "all the news that's fit to print". That's editorial control, not censorship, because they don't try to prevent Small Town Weekly from printing a story about a lost dog, they just refuse to print it in the NY Times.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
naveen99 14y ago
isn't deletionism irrelevant in a post github world. anyone can just create a gist instead. i hope github forks the wikipedia.
- lazugod 14y ago
  Copying Wikipedia has been done, and nobody hears about it because it's the people and publicity that matters, the constant supply of contibutors that matters, not the copied tech or the content. And there's no reason to think that Github would bring a userbase that's either different or bigger than what Wikipedia already has now, much less a better userbase.
pnathan 14y ago
You can get a iPhone app subscription to Britannica for a few $/mo. I have found Britannica to be excruciatingly better written and more comprehensive on their in-depth articles than Wikipedia. Things that aren't in the nerd enclave are covered, and well. I would never donate to Wikipedia as it is today: I happily send money to Britannica. There are too many structural problems with Wikipedia - documented over the last few years by various angry bloggers - for me to feel OK with Wikipedia. Some of the content - good. The community & rules - blech. c2 is a better wiki. :-)
zerostar07 14y ago
I think the problem with the Wedding Gown has more to do with the fact that there is no UK wikipedia, rather than a gender issue. The English wikipedia is an interesting amalgam with lots of peculiarities when seen from an outsider's perspective.
Codhisattva 14y ago
Along the same lines as the dress issue is this piece from On The Media http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/mar/09/professor-versus-wikipedia/transcript/ http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/mar/09/professor-versus-wikip.... It goes into depth about the editorial problem at Wikipedia.
tokenadult 14y ago
I'm a Wikipedian, with a registered Wikipedia user account and moderate Wikipedia editing experience since 2010. The interesting discussion thread groups together two kinds of issues: issues discused in the submitted article from Slate and issues brought up by Hacker News participants. I'll discuss each in turn. The Slate article by Torie Bosch, http://www.slate.com/authors.torie_bosch.html http://www.slate.com/authors.torie_bosch.html a professional journalist who edits a project covering technology and society issues, reports from this year's Wikimania meeting that Wikipedia continues to face criticism from readers who think its group of editors ("Wikipedians") skew too heavily to "geeks" and result in underrepresentation of topics of interest to women. Thus far Wikipedia is still working on plans to encourage more women to become Wikipedians and to edit more regularly. She finishes up by writing, "I’ve never been a Wikipedia editor. The community struck me as uninviting, legalistic." I'll be interested in her experiences if she decides to wade in. Unlike most Wikipedians, Torie Bosch has actual professional editing experience, having had to submit manuscripts to editors who chop out her darling words, and having had to chop out words from the manuscripts of other reporters. Most Wikipedians have not had professional editing or research experience of any kind before joining Wikipedia, and what I find most "uninviting" about Wikipedia is not that it is "legalistic" (although it often is legalistic) but that many Wikipedians are completely clueless about what a good source looks like and how bad many of the current articles have been for how long. I'm not sure yet if Wikipedia is pursuing a successful strategy to improve content quality. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Improve_Quality http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strate... After being very involved in Wikipedia editing just as there was a major Arbitration Committee case on topics that I have researched thoroughly for years, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/... I have reduced my involvement mostly to "wikignome" editing of random mistakes I encounter as I use Wikipedia as a reader. I still have the SOFIXIT mentality, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFIXIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFIXIT of cleaning up problems in Wikipedia as I find them, but to fix big problems on Wikipedia caused by point-of-view-pushing propagandists is even more work than editing a publication as an occupation (something I have done), and yet unpaid. So I really wonder how much time Torie Bosch will devote to Wikipedia when she could be doing editorial work in an actual collegial environment at Slate with pay and professional recognition. The Hacker News comments before this comment have mostly referred to the issue of "deletionism." For example, Every time a "problem" like this makes the news, the real problem always seems to be overzealous deletionists with their ridiculously strict notability requirement. . . . Honestly, I cannot think of a good reason to delete any article at all, unless it's obviously fraudulent, marketing-oriented, illegal, or obscene according to a widely accepted definition of obscenity. I wonder if there is an organized campaign to fix the overzealous deletion problem (by changing the "notability" policy), to boycott as long as it remains and pledge to donate if it is changed to a more objective policy. Why are any articles deleted, unless they are factually wrong? Censorship. Who is to say what will be important in the future? Censorship. Who is to say that people will want to read? Censorship. I have noticed alot of information/articles upon wikipedia get deleted/flagged for deletion at a rather zelous rate and in that I have one question: WHY, if they are not superceeded or and made redundant then personaly I feel they should never be removed. The one-word reply to comments like these is "Deletionpedia." http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page I was just browsing random pages of Deletionpedia to see what was posted there before the Deletionpedia project fizzled out (which appears to have been back in 2009). These are by no means the worst examples of material that has been deleted from Wikipedia (I'm not sure if Deletionpedia was ever an exhaustive list of deleted articles, or only a selected sample of those), but the sheer lack of maintenance of Deletionpedia over the last few years calls baloney on the idea that there are lots of readers happy to read stuff that has been deleted from Wikipedia. As bad as Wikipedia often is, EDITING (modifying and deleting) stuff on it so that Wikipedia more closely resembles an encyclopedia makes some Wikipedia pages much better reads than many of the millions of pages would turn up in a keywork search on the same topics. I don't believe that a lot of readers see value in an online "encyclopedia" with a no-deletion or hardly-any-deletion policy because no one has put up the money to fund one, and I'm not aware of anyone here on Hacker News who is donating programming skill to start one. If you really think articles "should never be removed," build a service to host articles written by anyone about anything and see what happens. The big problem on Wikipedia is not deletionism. It is insertion of promotional articles (some more subtle than others), propaganda articles (likewise), personal or family vanity articles (very numerous), and fan and hobby articles that are not based on any reliable sources and are written in a manner more suitable for MySpace than for any encyclopedia. A lot of people who attempt to edit Wikipedia never look up the article about what Wikipedia is not, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and attempt to publish their own thoughts, promote their own causes or businesses, social network in an online encyclopedia, self-report the news, or otherwise post material that has nothing to do with maintaining a free online encyclopedia built from reliable sources.

217 points by soupboy 14y ago

nsns 14y ago

Having an article marked for deletion means nothing, it happens all the time, and is one of the ways power flows in Wikipedia's anarchic domain (and I'm not sure this kind of power play is really gendered, it is more of a conservative, restraining, force). While I highly regard Wikipedia's amazing and quite successful project, and hope there will be more editors that are female (oriented, not necessarily biological), there is still a lot that's not there, perhaps will never be, yet matters for various cultures and localities around the world, Wikipedia English has a built in bias (hint: English), and it's not a gendered one.

pbhjpbhj 14y ago
There's a bot I think that marks new articles as speedy delete by default. At least I wrote a stub, marked as such, and seconds after completion got a deletion notice.
- mjn 14y ago
  Weird. Did it include any references? I haven't had these problems people are mentioning in the past few years, and I create articles now and then. They're usually not even really long ones: 1-2 paragraphs, 1-2 sources cited. Usually on historical stuff, e.g. ancient Greek archaeological sites, or minor 18th/19th-century government officials, scientists, or inventors. The most common outcome is that I never hear from anybody. The articles don't get nominated for deletion, and neither do they get improved by anyone else.
  - pbhjpbhj 14y ago
    It had one ref and was marked {{stub}} - for a series of public art pieces relating to two major public events in a UK city. The event only really reaches 2 or 3 major city areas for 3 months every couple of years; I don't bother looking but I guess it's not WP:NOTABLE or whatever the tag is. I'm not bothered really; better to delete them then than when I'd actually written the article.
  - lizzard 14y ago
    Add a biography of some female scientists and writers and see what happens. Then watch the pages.
    - mjn 14y ago
      That's actually something I do do! One of my on-again, off-again projects, which now that you mentioned it I should return to, is going through the book American Women Historians, 1700s–1900s: A Biographical Dictionary, and adding articles on the ones that're missing (which is a lot of them), especially those where I can find 2-3 additional sources to use for an article (which is still a lot of them). So far nobody's tried to delete my contributions. There are also some more organized projects. There are a few dozen people at WikiProject Women's History: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women%27s_History http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Women%27s..., and Wikimedia hired a paid Community Fellow to focus on gender-gap issues: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:SarahStierch

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

w1ntermute 14y ago

This brings up a very interesting point - can anyone think of topics that Wikipedia has inadvertently omitted thanks to the narrow section of society that contributes significant amounts of new content to the site? There's been a lot of talk in recent years about how the "initial work" of adding information to Wikipedia is mostly done, and that from here on out, it's going to be mainly about adding new content as it's created (new events, people, companies, etc.). But it seems possible that myopia on the part of editors could be having inadvertent effects.

jmduke 14y ago
World history. The article for the XBOX 360: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBOX_360 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XBOX_360 The article for the Republic of Ragusa: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ragusa http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ragusa Wikipedia's editors (or, perhaps more accurately, humanity) have a bias in thinking details in the present are more important than details in the past.
- w1ntermute 14y ago
  That's very amusing, because the exact opposite bias can be found in traditional encyclopedias: > The other day I read a dozen thousand words about Assyrian archeology in my DVD copy of Encyclopedia Britannica, but when I wanted to read about the Xbox 360, there wasn't even a single entry, so I gave up. http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/12/3154537/paul-miller-offline-hard-to-binge http://www.theverge.com/2012/7/12/3154537/paul-miller-offlin... > Wikipedia's editors (or, perhaps more accurately, humanity) have a bias in thinking details in the present are more important than details in the past. I don't know if that's entirely true. I think it significantly depends on what those "details" are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_games
  - gaius 14y ago
    The test of time takes time...
- 14y ago

lien 14y ago

Wikipedia is an interesting place. I am not sure what classifies articles for deletion, but it feels like only people who live in the Internet industry take part in actively running and editing the articles. I don't think of it as a male dominant community (even though I am female), but it feels like to me that only for people who are only care about stuff they know. It feels more like a closed minded community than having a woman problem. My previous company was a chip and Wi-Fi module startup (ZeroG Wireless). I had requested our company name to be created around 2009. At that point, we had been around for 4 years and we had taken $30m in funding. However, we were never granted a section on Wikipedia. On the other hand, plenty of internet companies who were around than launch much shorter than that and their names are currently on Wikipedia, for example, Pownce. I am sure that many others are granted a Wikipedia entry for being around less, accomplishing less than what we did. The only difference is that these were Internet startups and ZeroG was not. Some people simply need to wake up and stop living in their own bubble. Let's hope that one day they can realize that others do care about things that the community doesn't care.

philwelch 14y ago
> My previous company was a chip and Wi-Fi module startup (ZeroG Wireless). I had requested our company name to be created around 2009. At that point, we had been around for 4 years and we had taken $30m in funding. However, we were never granted a section on Wikipedia. There are a lot of ways to get yourself discredited on Wikipedia, but trying to get an article written about yourself, your company, your band, or anything else you are intimately involved in is the most reliable.
- lien 14y ago
  I never attempted to write about my company. I submitted a request to have my company created as an entry. You need to have your company name created first before anyone can write about you.
  - philwelch 14y ago
    I never said you did attempt to write about your company. > You need to have your company name created first before anyone can write about you. No you don't. If you're logged in and you go to a blank page, you can just start writing something there, unless the page has been specifically blocked from page creation because someone keeps putting spam there. I would say that the combination of not knowing how Wikipedia works, asking other people to do something for you, and on top of that, trying to get an article written about yourself, your company, your band, or anything else you are intimately involved with is a perfect way to get yourself ignored and discredited.

haberman 14y ago

I am frequently surprised to find Wikipedia articles about very narrow, highly-specialized technical concepts. For example, there is a Wikipedia page about iso646.h in the C language standard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iso646.h http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iso646.h). If you're wondering why you never heard of iso646.h before, it's because it is only useful if you are programming in C on a system that does not support cutting-edge characters like "&" or "|". This is esoterica that does not have any measurable impact on the world. And this isn't even an article about ISO 646 per se, it's about a header file. I find such articles extremely useful, so I'm not advocating that they be deleted. But surely the wedding gown worn by a British Monarch who is widely known for her fashion sense is at least as relevant to the world at large.

johncoltrane 14y ago
Judging by the number of magazine covers and news segments devoted to this woman, I'd say it's a lot more relevant. I agree with the current top poster: they shouldn't delete anything that doesn't conform to general rules of objectivity.
vacri 14y ago
That kind of info in the linked article really should be in an aggregated article, not it's own page. It barely qualifies as a stub article.
mjn 14y ago
I think a lot of these articles fall into the "benign neglect" category. They collect dust in a corner somewhere, and most people who run across them don't understand the content enough to feel like they should offer an opinion. It's with recent pop culture where everyone has an opinion one way or the other. There's also a bit more scrutiny given to anything about currently living people, as opposed to articles on inanimate technical subjects, because of the potential for libel, though I'm not sure that was relevant here.
njharman 14y ago
> relevant to the world at large That is not a good encyclopedic. Encyclopedia's are to document and archive for current and future generations. They are a store of knowledge for knowledge's sake. You include stuff that may not be relevant today because it may be relevant tomorrow.

aw3c2 14y ago

Isn't it sexism to say that linux distros are for men and wedding gowns for women?

saraid216 14y ago
Yes. Isn't it silly to ask a stupid question for the sake of making a rhetorical point?
- aw3c2 14y ago
  I am interested in what others think, so no, it was not stupid to ask a question. clarification: Yes, honestly. I don't get most of the sexism debates.
  - saraid216 14y ago
    > I don't get most of the sexism debates. I could tell. If you'd like to explain where you're coming from, that might invite a less snarky reply since you'd become a human being with a unique background and the potential for critical thought. Perhaps someone will even help explain to you what you "don't get". You might even have the chance to find out what others think. As it is, the only thought I have is that you asked a stupid and inflammatory question. I shared that thought with you. Are you actually interested? Because walking into a bar fight and punching someone in the nose is not the right way to find out how it started.
- irahul 14y ago
  > Isn't it silly to ask a stupid question for the sake of making a rhetorical point? silly, stupid, rhetorical. Three insults in one reply - I am impressed. /s How is your reply any more relevant than his comment?
  - saraid216 14y ago
    > How is your reply any more relevant than his comment? Gadzooks, you're right! His comment wasn't just silly; it was irrelevant, too! I missed that. Thanks for catching it!

Zenst 14y ago

I have noticed alot of information/articles upon wikipedia get deleted/flagged for deletion at a rather zelous rate and in that I have one question: WHY, if they are not superceeded or and made redundant then personaly I feel they should never be removed. This may be some form of gender bias, though I have not looked up male sports items upon wiki. The dress does have a nice backstory from what I read in the news and was a pretty big historical event as far as wedding go and in that factualy it will not be superceeded in that regard. So the question is realy for me is wikipedia a source of knowledge/history/facts or is it biased towards flavour of the month(FOTM) and if it is the later then perhaps they need to revaluate there priorities. As to a solution, maybe they could have all articles that are flagged for deletion, need approval by one male and one female. Though in that I will say that some males have a female mindset and some females have a male mindset and in that they should be able to express and vote based upon there mindset as apposed to some physical gender. There is no golden solution though I do feel the zelous removal of articles be curtailed and a approach of only removing non-factualy/incorrect articles be the approach taken and in that, there will be less issues and references to items that have been removed. I hope they resolve a amicle approach or I fear they will only spawn a womenpedia based site for women only and that would be a sad day and a true wakeup call to the insanity and directions being taken. Look at business for examples how issolation impacts - you will see many females who state they promote women in business and yet you never see a man saying I promote males in business. One is accepted and the other is sexist. But sadly they mearly add fuel to the issue and instead of addressing the issue, I personaly feel they exacerbate the issue. Though if you were or felt persecuted - you to would stand up and do something about it, if you were strong person. Not all people are strong in defending there morals and fairness and in that it does highlight women are just as right to feel persecuted. Though I do wish the approach of "Supporting fairness in buisness" was adopted as apposed to "Supporting women in buisness" was the standard they promoted as it is just that - about fairness and that can and does work both ways on many level. Much respect to Mr Wales for spotting this issue and taking onboard, a true sign of a fair person. I also have no interests in make-up and wedding dresses and the like, but I fully respect they are facts of the World and in that have as much right as any linux distro to be there, I'm not forced to look up those articles, nor am I forced to read linux distros on the site but having that option is something I compeletly and utterly support and to do otherwise would be unfair and that is something that I feel uncomfortable with and hopefully this clear and documented bias can be eliminated in any form it takes in life, be it race, sex, orientation or origins. We are all humans and in that we strive to be better every generation we spawn. Humanity is wonderful when it works and aporant when it fails. Lets stand up and count everybody.

kijin 14y ago

Every time a "problem" like this makes the news, the real problem always seems to be overzealous deletionists with their ridiculously strict notability requirement. Gender imbalance might be a problem, but it's not a problem to the same extent as notability-based deletionism is. Notability is an extremely vague standard, a perfect recipe for abuse and selective enforcement. A fair and efficient editorial process should strive to replace vague rules with clearer counterparts whenever possible. Honestly, I cannot think of a good reason to delete any article at all, unless it's obviously fraudulent, marketing-oriented, illegal, or obscene according to a widely accepted definition of obscenity. All of these standards can be applied fairly strictly, and with much less vagueness than notability. - It's not like Wikipedia is short of disk space to store a few million extra text articles. - The argument that it would be too difficult to maintain lots of extra articles is also weak, because not every article needs to be regularly edited, and more articles on niche topics might actually attract more editors. - No, we won't end up with a page for every John Doe and his cat. That's just alarmism. Besides, if something like that ever becomes a problem, a better response would be a prohibition on self-promotion or some other clear guideline, rather than a vague requirement of notability. - If these deletionists are just being OCD and wanting everything to be tidy and clean and under their editorial control, I would say that they need to take a break. In fact, it's possible that people with certain psychological traits self-select for Wikipedia editorship. But the kind of intolerance and self-centered narrow-mindedness that overzealous deletionists exhibit doesn't suit the spirit of a collaborative online project. Keep your OCD to your own home/office and away from public spaces, thank you very much. Right now, I get the impression that it's too easy to flag something for deletion and too difficult to counter the deletionist argument, especially since the deletionists are so familiar with editorial procedures. This inequality needs to change. The burden of proof should be on people who want to remove information from the Web, not on those who want to keep it. Isn't that the same principle that we fought tooth and nail to uphold against the onslaught of SOPA, ACTA, etc?

ShardPhoenix 14y ago
Instead of notability, I'd prefer criteria of verifiability (ie there must be reliable sources) and objectivity (ie no marketing or self-promotion).

wololo 14y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in_Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deletionism_and_inclusionism_in... more discussion at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Deletionism and http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Inclusionism

conradfr 14y ago

Some years ago I cleaned up some random biology article vandalized with lots of not-even-subtle profanity. It was immediately reverted by some editor and I had to insist that he reads my modification to get it approved. It was the last time I tried to edit anything in WP, as I always had this kind of problem. I read it a lot like anyone else and donate small money every year but each time I read about the behind the scene, I'm appalled.

Danieru 14y ago
I wrote a small article on an obscure piece of software, I even studied the wiki syntax and added an infobox & image. It got fast track deleted the next day. Wikipedia has reached an equilibrium point between articles that cannot be deleted and deletionist desires to delete everything. In many cases the deciding factor, or the demand to the deletionists' supply, is public outrage.

mkramlich 14y ago

I see arguments for and against allowing Middleton's dress to be covered. For: it meets the criteria of being a widely covered and notable event, documented by numerous major media entities, and associated with a historical event of the ruling royal party of England. Against: yes it's just ephemeral celebrity gossip chit-chat that gives certain people (most likely, mostly women or perhaps some gay men) a feeling of warm fuzzies when thinking about it or fantasizing about it. So yes that feels wrong for Wikipedia because there are plenty of other websites and mediums for that sort of thing. In other words, the problem is that it both belongs, and doesn't belong. And they need to resolve that paradox, maybe setting a new precedent or revising their official criteria. I think the "not enough women" thing is just a side issue. And one that has an easy and blatantly obvious solution: if you're a woman and you want to become a Wikipedia contributor or moderator, then go do it. If enough of you do it, then the gender balance will shift notably. If enough of you are not interested, then it won't. There's nothing inherently wrong with either state of affairs, it would be just the way it is. For example, I don't think it's "wrong" that the overwhelming majority (99.8%+) of hair cut folks at Great Clips over the years, in my direct experience, have been women, because that probably just reflects the natural level of interest of men and women in working in that role. I don't feel oppressed or excluded. If I wanted to work there cutting hair, or have a man cut my hair, I'd make it happen, end of story, and if not, or either way, I'd live with it and move on.

icebraining 14y ago
I'm pretty sure those "feelings of warm fuzzies" move a lot of money in the fashion industry. The influence that even details like that have when we're dealing with celebrities shouldn't be disregarded. if you're a woman and you want to become a Wikipedia contributor or moderator, then go do it. I think the point is that they did, and their contributions got deleted.

vacri 14y ago

Because all women love dresses, just like all geeks love linux.

streptomycin 14y ago
Because I wish there were no gender biases, I will pretend that just because not 100% of a gender is completely monolithic, that must mean that any gender bias is disproved.
- vacri 14y ago
  Seriously, honestly, the majority of women could not be stuffed about celebrity wedding dresses. Sure, more women are into it than men, I won't argue about that. But I'll be damned if 'caring about celebrity wedding dresses' is classed as a 'women's issue', because, frankly, it's not. No more than 'caring about racing cars' are a 'men's issue', and most men get through life not thinking about them much, and just as many find them boring as interesting. If I was forbidden to talk about racing at work, I wouldn't go around yawping about how my boss had problems with "men's issues". It's not a women's issue, it's a fashion issue. Note that I'm talking about real, actual men and women here; not the stereotypes that folks have in their head, but the actual people they want to do editorial work. A better example: What about guns? The gender balance when it comes to vocal, visible people who like guns is heavily skewed towards males, but people don't call out gun control advocates as causing trouble for 'men's issues', or 'trying to silence men'. The issue here is less 'geeks hate women, and so women's articles suffer in wikipedia', and more 'geeks care less about subjects outside their bailiwick, like fashion, and so those articles suffer in wikipedia'. The question is really 'how do we loosen the reins of the geeks a little', not 'there's not enough Genital Type V amongst our editors'.
  - streptomycin 14y ago
    So what would you call a "men's issue" or a "women's issue"? Or do you think that no such issues exist?
    - 14y ago

konstruktor 14y ago

Articles like this make me angry. Wikipedia is one of the most important, if not the most important, example of digital commons, created by an enourmous amount of volunteer work. 91% of those doing this work are male, according to the article. Now a group that has contributed only a small fraction of the work for a decade complains about being underrepresented? This is not the military, which had actual barriers of entry for women, this is Wikipedia, which you could edit without an account only a few years ago. At that time it was a true, anonymous meritocracy, as opposed to a mailing list where your name gives away your gender and may subject you to gender discrimination.

Mvandenbergh 14y ago
Except of course that having articles deleted is a barrier to entry.
- konstruktor 14y ago
  Which would have been a gender-neutral barrier had women contributed a similar share of work and dedication in the early days and thus achieved similar influence.
  - aristus 14y ago
    Influence has a way of perpetuating itself, especially when its protected by nerdy little enclaves. So you are saying that because women (or mexicans or furries) did not contribute in the past, they now deserve to be excluded in the future?
    - konstruktor 14y ago
      No, I would hope to see more work from (and proportionately more influence for) women on Wikipedia. But the article presents what seems to be the result of past inaction, back when Wikipedia was a meritocracy, as a Women's Rights issue. Yes, there is a gender bias on Wikipedia now, and even chauvinistic behavior. We should get rid of both, if possible, which may be difficult as such an environment is not inviting to women.

nsns 14y ago

Wikipedia's stated aim, to make information "freely" available, has no gender bias; it doesn't ask for it before serving its content - in marked contrast to other services (Google? Facebook? certainly the various ad services) which might structure their content according to a user's gender. However, if Wikipedia has another aim - to make the scope of its content bias-free, then I think it has not thought it thoroughly yet: even structuring information as encyclopedia entries is inherently biased and restrictive (not necessarily bad though). Correlating Wikipedia's contributors' sex to an assumed gender bias in its scope (who gets to decide the articles' 'gender'?), as Wales does, proves how naïve such a project currently is.

sbmassey 14y ago

Why not simply accept that wikipedia has a particular bias, and set up your own wiki - fashionpedia perhaps - if you want to create articles that wikipedia doesn't accept? Wikipedia has become a success because of its culture. It should be very careful about changing that based on the demands of the entitled multitudes.

Mvandenbergh 14y ago
Because Wikipedia aspires not to have such biases. If Wikipedia was linuxdistropedia then no-one would think it was odd that it was focused on obscure distros and didn't care for articles about embroidery or the history of Islamic jurisprudence. But it aspires to be a universal encyclopaedia.

alan_cx 14y ago

Why are any articles deleted, unless they are factually wrong? Censorship. Who is to say what will be important in the future? Censorship. Who is to say that people will want to read? Censorship. There should not be any notion of importance. All knowledge is important. What I find important is as valid as what any one else values as important. Frankly, and to my shame this is the first time I have given any thought to it, I am disgusted that something which, IMHO, is supposed to be an unbiased information repository actually deletes knowledge. To me, this is the most disturbing case of censorship I have ever thought about. Government censorship is expected, bad news, sure but expected. But this is supposed to be above that. How can they bleat on about SOPA etc, then allow a small number of geeks to tell me I can't see an article about some princesses dress? Wikipedia is NOT Geekpedia. And it should not be censoring knowledge. Quite sad actually. My Wikipedia love bubble just burst. :(

21sappers 14y ago
I could not agree with you more.
jeffdavis 14y ago
Censorship is when you try to prevent a class of ideas or knowledge from being communicated in any medium. Dictators try to stop criticism, regardless of whether it's by pamphlet or radio broadcast. That is not the issue we're talking about at all. We're talking about editing a specific body of work (Wikipedia) to exclude things deemed unfit. In fact, the motto of the NY Times is "all the news that's fit to print". That's editorial control, not censorship, because they don't try to prevent Small Town Weekly from printing a story about a lost dog, they just refuse to print it in the NY Times.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

naveen99 14y ago

isn't deletionism irrelevant in a post github world. anyone can just create a gist instead. i hope github forks the wikipedia.

lazugod 14y ago
Copying Wikipedia has been done, and nobody hears about it because it's the people and publicity that matters, the constant supply of contibutors that matters, not the copied tech or the content. And there's no reason to think that Github would bring a userbase that's either different or bigger than what Wikipedia already has now, much less a better userbase.

pnathan 14y ago

You can get a iPhone app subscription to Britannica for a few $/mo. I have found Britannica to be excruciatingly better written and more comprehensive on their in-depth articles than Wikipedia. Things that aren't in the nerd enclave are covered, and well. I would never donate to Wikipedia as it is today: I happily send money to Britannica. There are too many structural problems with Wikipedia - documented over the last few years by various angry bloggers - for me to feel OK with Wikipedia. Some of the content - good. The community & rules - blech. c2 is a better wiki. :-)

zerostar07 14y ago

I think the problem with the Wedding Gown has more to do with the fact that there is no UK wikipedia, rather than a gender issue. The English wikipedia is an interesting amalgam with lots of peculiarities when seen from an outsider's perspective.

Codhisattva 14y ago

Along the same lines as the dress issue is this piece from On The Media http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/mar/09/professor-versus-wikipedia/transcript/ http://www.onthemedia.org/2012/mar/09/professor-versus-wikip.... It goes into depth about the editorial problem at Wikipedia.

tokenadult 14y ago

I'm a Wikipedian, with a registered Wikipedia user account and moderate Wikipedia editing experience since 2010. The interesting discussion thread groups together two kinds of issues: issues discused in the submitted article from Slate and issues brought up by Hacker News participants. I'll discuss each in turn. The Slate article by Torie Bosch, http://www.slate.com/authors.torie_bosch.html http://www.slate.com/authors.torie_bosch.html a professional journalist who edits a project covering technology and society issues, reports from this year's Wikimania meeting that Wikipedia continues to face criticism from readers who think its group of editors ("Wikipedians") skew too heavily to "geeks" and result in underrepresentation of topics of interest to women. Thus far Wikipedia is still working on plans to encourage more women to become Wikipedians and to edit more regularly. She finishes up by writing, "I’ve never been a Wikipedia editor. The community struck me as uninviting, legalistic." I'll be interested in her experiences if she decides to wade in. Unlike most Wikipedians, Torie Bosch has actual professional editing experience, having had to submit manuscripts to editors who chop out her darling words, and having had to chop out words from the manuscripts of other reporters. Most Wikipedians have not had professional editing or research experience of any kind before joining Wikipedia, and what I find most "uninviting" about Wikipedia is not that it is "legalistic" (although it often is legalistic) but that many Wikipedians are completely clueless about what a good source looks like and how bad many of the current articles have been for how long. I'm not sure yet if Wikipedia is pursuing a successful strategy to improve content quality. http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strategic_Plan_Summary/Improve_Quality http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Movement_Strate... After being very involved in Wikipedia editing just as there was a major Arbitration Committee case on topics that I have researched thoroughly for years, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Race_and_intelligence http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/... I have reduced my involvement mostly to "wikignome" editing of random mistakes I encounter as I use Wikipedia as a reader. I still have the SOFIXIT mentality, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFIXIT http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:SOFIXIT of cleaning up problems in Wikipedia as I find them, but to fix big problems on Wikipedia caused by point-of-view-pushing propagandists is even more work than editing a publication as an occupation (something I have done), and yet unpaid. So I really wonder how much time Torie Bosch will devote to Wikipedia when she could be doing editorial work in an actual collegial environment at Slate with pay and professional recognition. The Hacker News comments before this comment have mostly referred to the issue of "deletionism." For example, Every time a "problem" like this makes the news, the real problem always seems to be overzealous deletionists with their ridiculously strict notability requirement. . . . Honestly, I cannot think of a good reason to delete any article at all, unless it's obviously fraudulent, marketing-oriented, illegal, or obscene according to a widely accepted definition of obscenity. I wonder if there is an organized campaign to fix the overzealous deletion problem (by changing the "notability" policy), to boycott as long as it remains and pledge to donate if it is changed to a more objective policy. Why are any articles deleted, unless they are factually wrong? Censorship. Who is to say what will be important in the future? Censorship. Who is to say that people will want to read? Censorship. I have noticed alot of information/articles upon wikipedia get deleted/flagged for deletion at a rather zelous rate and in that I have one question: WHY, if they are not superceeded or and made redundant then personaly I feel they should never be removed. The one-word reply to comments like these is "Deletionpedia." http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page http://deletionpedia.dbatley.com/w/index.php?title=Main_Page I was just browsing random pages of Deletionpedia to see what was posted there before the Deletionpedia project fizzled out (which appears to have been back in 2009). These are by no means the worst examples of material that has been deleted from Wikipedia (I'm not sure if Deletionpedia was ever an exhaustive list of deleted articles, or only a selected sample of those), but the sheer lack of maintenance of Deletionpedia over the last few years calls baloney on the idea that there are lots of readers happy to read stuff that has been deleted from Wikipedia. As bad as Wikipedia often is, EDITING (modifying and deleting) stuff on it so that Wikipedia more closely resembles an encyclopedia makes some Wikipedia pages much better reads than many of the millions of pages would turn up in a keywork search on the same topics. I don't believe that a lot of readers see value in an online "encyclopedia" with a no-deletion or hardly-any-deletion policy because no one has put up the money to fund one, and I'm not aware of anyone here on Hacker News who is donating programming skill to start one. If you really think articles "should never be removed," build a service to host articles written by anyone about anything and see what happens. The big problem on Wikipedia is not deletionism. It is insertion of promotional articles (some more subtle than others), propaganda articles (likewise), personal or family vanity articles (very numerous), and fan and hobby articles that are not based on any reliable sources and are written in a manner more suitable for MySpace than for any encyclopedia. A lot of people who attempt to edit Wikipedia never look up the article about what Wikipedia is not, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not and attempt to publish their own thoughts, promote their own causes or businesses, social network in an online encyclopedia, self-report the news, or otherwise post material that has nothing to do with maintaining a free online encyclopedia built from reliable sources.