Talk:Gender bias on Wikipedia

Some of the studies and sources described under this subheading do not attempt to measure gender disparity. Some, such as Maher's comment, could be moved to the Causes section. Others might need a different subheading. -- Jaireeodell (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yesterday I added this sentence to the article:

A recent study using Wikidata to measure content has found that Britannica, which covers 50,479 biographies has 5,999 of them about women, a 11.88%^[1].

As this is a study trying to measure gender bias in written encyclopedias, and it gives some examples for reference, I think that including here makes sense. Nevertheless, @NightHeron has reverted it many times (I ping also @Mx. Granger and @Johnbod who have participated in this small edit warring).

I would like to know why exactly this referenced and on-topic sentence is out of place here. Thanks. Theklan (talk) 20:42, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Does the source compare Britannica to any of the Wikipedias? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:44, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Yes, it does. The article's main goal is to analyze the biographies at eu:Lur Hiztegi Entziklopedikoa, the largest Basque print Encyclopedia, so it compares first with the bulk of Wikipedias (using Humaniki) and then gives the numbers for some large Encyclopedias that can be analyzed via Wikidata. The number of biographies at Britannica is given with this Wikidata query footnote: https://w.wiki/4qAk. The sex ratio is given here: https://w.wiki/4dtr. I think that the sentence is fully relevant in a paragraph where Britannica is compared with Wikipedia. Theklan (talk) 20:52, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Can you please summarize that comparison in the article text? Without it, we're missing the key connection between the source and this article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

The article itself talks about that. I just summarized it for you. I can copy for you the text here, if you want:

From the introduction (translated from Basque):

Wikipediaren sorrerak, eta bereziki azken hamarkadan egin diren esfortzuek, emakumeen eta alboetan geratu direnen errepresentazioa hobetu dute (Reagle & Rhue, 2011; Konieczny & Klein, 2018; Causevic et al., 2020), nahiz eta editore gehienak gizonezkoak izan (Lam et al., 2011). Hala ere, 2022aren hasieran Wikimedia proiektu guztietan eskaintzen diren biografia guztien artean, %18,22 dira emakumezkoak (Humaniki, 2021). Era berean, Lehen Mundutik errepresentatu da ere orain arte kanpoan geratu diren ezagutza horiek, askotan definitzen ari denaren izaera bera eraldatuz (Luyt, 2018).

Since the creation of Wikipedia, and especially due to the efforts done in the last decade, representation of women and those who have been in the margins have been improved (Reagle & Rhue, 2011; Konieczny & Klein, 2018; Causevic et al., 2020), despite of most of the editors are male (Lam et al., 2011). Anyway, at the beginning of 2022 18,22% of the biographies in all Wikimedia projects are about women (Humaniki, 2021). Adding to that, most of the representation of those that were on the margins have been done from the First World, many times misrepresenting that that was being defined (Luyt, 2018).

From the section 4.2 (Comparison with other Wikipedias):

Aztertu nahi dugun bigarren gaia gizon-emakume ratioa da. Entziklopedia tradizionaletan nabarmen da gizon gehiago izan direla emakumezko baino, goian aipatu den bezala. Wikipediek, orokorrean, emaitza hobeak dituzte entziklopedi inprimatuek baino emakumeen errepresentazioan (Reagle & Rhue, 2011). Ratio horiek alderatu nahi ditugu, berriro ere Wikidata erabilita.

The second topic we want to explore is the male-women ration. In traditional Encyclopedias the amount of men is clearly higher than those of women, as mentioned above. Wikipedias, in general terms, have better results than printed encyclopedias in terms of women representation (Reagle & Rhue, 2011). We wanted to compare those ratios using Wikidata.

And then comes Table 2:

I think that the comparison appears in the article, that the data is interesting and that it is relevant in that paragraph. Theklan (talk) 16:33, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I added the explicit comparison to the article. Let me know if I've summarized something misleadingly. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:50, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the edit. The 2021 is not a paper, but Humaniki. I wouldn't add the paper word there. Theklan (talk) 08:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Theklan’s edit added new content, which has been disputed by other editors. WP:BRD says: Making bold edits is encouraged, as it will result in either improving an article or stimulating discussion. If your edit gets reverted, do not revert again. Instead, begin a discussion […]. WP:ONUS says: The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. @Johnbod's edit summary accusing me of edit-warring is unwarranted.

The disputed sentence reads as if the point is to suggest that Wikipedia isn’t so bad after all, at least compared to Britannica (which has about 12% representation as opposed to 19%). If that is the intent, the sentence, if it belongs anywhere, belongs in a paragraph defending Wikipedia from the charge of gender bias. In my opinion that would be a rather lame defense. NightHeron (talk) 21:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

• The newly added sentence reads like WP:SYNTH, or at best just off-topic. The sentence doesn't mention Wikipedia at all and instead talks about a different encyclopedia. If the source talks about gender bias on Wikipedia, we should summarize what it says about gender bias on Wikipedia. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 02:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  I think that comparison of Wikipedia's gender ratio in biographies to other encyclopedias is relevant information that should be included, if found in RS. (t · c) buidhe 04:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  All the section where the sentence is included is about Britannica. If talking about Britannica is off-topic, all the section should be removed. Theklan (talk) 06:16, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

  In its present location your sentence is now on topic (as you say, it’s in a paragraph with other comparisons with Britannica). But without any explanation it introduces an apparent blatant contradiction with the information in the previous sentences. Your sentence says that women are more under-represented in Britannica than in Wikpedia, whereas the other sentences in the paragraph say that Britannica is more balanced in whom it neglects to cover than Wikipedia; that Wikipedia articles on women were more likely to be missing than articles on men relative to Britannica; and that Wikipedia dominated Britannica in biographical coverage, but more so when it comes to men. This unexplained contradiction makes the whole paragraph confusing. NightHeron (talk) 18:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I think that the explanation for this discrepancy is that Theklan’s source is more recent. That is, Wikipedia is much better equipped to respond quickly to criticism (for example, by starting the “Women in Red” project) than stodgy, traditional encyclopedias. In the early 2000s Wikipedia lagged behind Britannica in its proportional coverage of women, but now it’s better – though still there’s a long way to go before our coverage is adequate.

If this is the correct explanation, we need RS in order to put it in, or else it would violate WP:OR. NightHeron (talk) 19:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

Or, failing that, we should just drop the older source, and go with the more recent one, unless there is a good reason not to. A lot of the sources used in the article are rather too old, given that the internet generally does not stand still, and 10 years is a long time in this context. Johnbod (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply

I am currently a PhD student studying gender bias on Wikipedia. I have code that I am happy to open source which validates the claim, but I am unsure whether citing this would constitute "original research" (WP:OR). I would argue that it could be a "routine calculation" (WP:CALC) as the methodology is straightforward (links on Wikipedia are unambiguous; there is a norm for classifying the gender of the person a biography is about already cited on this page). Fortunately, if such a citation would be classified as original research, I plan to publish my results in a journal and then there will be a more recent source than 2015 which could then be cited. Willbeason (talk) 17:20, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

This article really needs some detail about biographical articles beyond the raw counts that ask for an explanation but don't provide one. Anyone investigating this phenomenon by actual search will immediately notice that the greatest source of the disparity is the vast number of articles about male sports figures, especially American ones. This type of information is absent. I can suggest one source that should be cited: https://doi.org/10.1145/3479986.3479992 . Zero^talk 03:17, 24 March 2024 (UTC)Reply