Women writing articles on wikipedia, sponsored by the state

[Deleted]

http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel...rtikel=6225179

Articles and facts on the Swedish version of Wikipedia are still written mainly by men, but Swedish Radio News reports that the non-profit organization Wikimedia Sverige has now received further state funds to get more women to share their knowledge on the free, digital encyclopedia.

Swedish Radio News reports that less than 2 in 10 of Wikipedia's users who write and edit on the site are women.

"Clearly, humanity's collective knowledge is not just men's knowledge. So we want to have a wide range, in that people with different experience and different knowledge can share it," says Sara Mörtsell, Education Manager for Wikimedia Sverige.

This is the third year in a row that the association is receiving money from the Swedish Agency for Youth and Civil Society, and this year, the funding amounts to SEK 486,000. The organization now plans to offer sessions more regularly in which people can sit down and learn how to write and edit an article for the website.

Asked if the organization has seen an increase in female users since starting these sessions, Mörtsell replies that it's hard to say, adding "what we do know is that there are people who feel that this introduction has given them an awful lot."

Is it right to fund such a thing, only for women?

[Deleted]

My possession of a dick prevents me from commenting on such matters.

Sorry for being male, sorry for being white

[Ishayu]

It's not right for the state to be sponsoring Wikipedia at all in my opinion. Donating to it - fine. Sponsoring it (i.e. having an impact on the contents) is not. The state should keep its nose out of the media.

On top of that, I'm pretty sick of affirmative action in favour of women. How come there isn't any affirmative action to get men into nursing or teaching, or getting women into garbage collection and coal mining? Why is affirmative action for women always supposed to move them up the social ladder, with no affirmative action for men low on the social ladder to move them even moderately up? The Swedish Feminists are crazy; that's my take on it.

[Forgettable]

Sounds pretty sexist to me.

[Revi]

I didn't realize Wikipedia was a place to share personal experiences, so unless facts change based on your genitals, this seems ridiculous.

[dextersmith]

So facts have perspectives now?

- - - Updated - - -

My possession of a dick prevents me from commenting on such matters.

Sorry for being male, sorry for being white

Now apologize for the economy!

[unbound]

On top of that, I'm pretty sick of affirmative action in favour of women. How come there isn't any affirmative action to get men into nursing or teaching, or getting women into garbage collection and coal mining? Why is affirmative action for women always supposed to move them up the social ladder, with no affirmative action for men low on the social ladder to move them even moderately up? The Swedish Feminists are crazy; that's my take on it.

Men low on the social ladder? I would be curious to know what planet you are living on.

The whole reason for various affirmative action efforts is to get disadvantaged groups an opportunity to be on par with socially advantaged groups. There is no need to give additional opportunities to groups that already have an advantage or to encourage any group to put themselves in a disadvantaged situation.

So, to your examples, there are no barriers to men going into nursing or teaching (in fact, there are plenty of male teachers except on the planet where you reside). Pushing women into garbage collection or coal mining is explicitly missing the point.

The fact that some white men are low on the social ladder has nothing to do with being disadvantaged. In fact, the fact that some white men are low on the social ladder demonstrates a rather remarkable ineptness in their personal decisions, and not an aspect of society that has put them there.

[Deleted]

The fact that some white men are low on the social ladder has nothing to do with being disadvantaged. In fact, the fact that some white men are low on the social ladder demonstrates a rather remarkable ineptness in their personal decisions, and not an aspect of society that has put them there.

All of my wats. Pls.

[Cosmic Janitor]

So facts have perspectives now?

- - - Updated - - -



Now apologize for the economy!

Of course. Have you seen the attempts to change some of the sex/gender related entries by feminists? But I certainly don't think some of the wikipedia entries are without fault, especially of the localized ones. Many of the curators or what ever they are called suffer from the usual admin syndrome, namely megalomania.

[Crissi]

Im so confused. Basic facts arent gender biased. Interpretation of those facts are where the problem can start, but Wikipedia isnt the place for interpretation. So, gender of authors is irrelevant.

but good thing I always use the cited sources!

[Saft]

This is such a non issue, I just feel bad for these people.

I guess women are oppressed here as well?

[Deleted]

Im so confused. Basic facts arent gender biased. Interpretation of those facts are where the problem can start, but Wikipedia isnt the place for interpretation. So, gender of authors is irrelevant.

but good thing I always use the cited sources!

The average male penis size page on wiki disagrees.

[Jotaux]

Im so confused. Basic facts arent gender biased. Interpretation of those facts are where the problem can start, but Wikipedia isnt the place for interpretation. So, gender of authors is irrelevant.

but good thing I always use the cited sources!

Wikipedia tends to push a narrative on any gender related page and will ignore any sources that go against it.

[Deleted]

Echoing what others have said; do facts and relevant citations change based on the gender of the editor?

I suppose one could argue that on controversial subjects that are open to interpretation, there have been cases of "editing wars". You see it frequently in articles involving social justice, in which facts are thin on the ground, and the citations are from extremely biased sources, or non-existent, because the editors are pushing their own interpretations and narratives into the article. That really isn't what Wikipedia is for though, and they should probably clamp down on that sort of thing more actively.

In terms of factual articles, there is no "need" for a female perspective because perspective is irrelevant, so I find this initiative to be rather stupid and a significant waste of money. Besides which, anybody can edit wikipedia. There is literally no barrier to entry, so if women aren't contributing as much as men why is that considered un-natural or in need of changing?

[OneSent]

Well, it is Sweden. So...

Also, I don't think the fact that "less than 2 in 10 of Wikipedia's users who write and edit on the site are women" is a sign of inequality or sexism. Maybe men are just more inclined to write articles for the site.

I mean, if more women actually gave a shit, the statistics would show that. Bribing them into participation isn't going to net any better results.

[Snorkle]

Can anyone explain to me how someone can, from an article, determine a person's gender? Or how such a thing would matter? I mean... Is there any obvious practical issue I am missing here?

[Nachturnal]

Holy fuck. Sweden WTF is going on over there.

My penis apparently dictates what facts are. I'm sorry for being male. I hate myself just as much as you hate me Sweden!