User:Vknightbd

Hello world! Wikipedia to me is a treasure trove of information. I hope it continues for all of humanity.

One thing I've been finding interesting is the imbalance between men and women. I found this list and I think it's important that everyone is aware of it on a minimal level. And it is important since a female perspective can paint the whole picture where men and women are involved, or the female perspective is incredibly important on topics relating to women specifically. Here's my opinion on it (as an outsider to the Wikipedia community, so take it with a grain of salt):

1. A lack of user-friendliness in the editing interface
   • Why is this a #1 issue for women, but not men? I think this is valid problem, but it should affect women and men equally, no? Unless this point is also implying that women are lazy or lack time (see #2)? Wikipedia can definitely help make their interface better.
2. Not having enough free time
   • Definitely a societal problem, but biology is also partly to blame I guess. I don't think the Wikipedia community can do anything about this. I guess this issue will simply have to remain until it's solved outside of the community.
3. A lack of self-confidence
   • Also a societal problem, but biology perhaps is also partly to blame? Men are generally more confident (and some to the point of foolhardy and believe themselves to be invincible. I don't think women have this issue of self-invincibility as much as men do.)
4. Aversion to conflict and an unwillingness to participate in lengthy edit wars
   • I'm also adverse to conflict and wars, but why are there wars on Wikipedia? Do we not share the same goals? I'm guessing that an edit war occurs because someone is trying to promote pro-life, or feminism, or glorifying their favorite cartoon character. If we can agree to adhere to the Wikipedia pillars, we can probably spend less time fighting. This is definitely something the Wikipedia community can improve upon.
5. Belief that their contributions are too likely to be reverted or deleted
   • Does having your contributions removed feel like an attack? Assuming good faith, shouldn't everyone expect wikipedia pages to evolve and change over time? Is this also related to a lack of self-confidence?
6. Some find its overall atmosphere misogynistic
   • Yup. This is something Wikipedia community, as well as all of society needs to improve and fix.
7. Wikipedia culture is sexual in ways they find off-putting
   • This is probably related to men thinking about sex all the time. Sexual expression is still valid, but perhaps there's too much of it? We can probably tone it down.
8. Being addressed as male is off-putting to women whose primary language has grammatical gender
   • I assume this is not about initial contact, in which assumption of male is a statistically safe thing to do, but rather, this is about informing other editors that you're female, yet they refer to you as "him". I guess this is a cultural or societal problem? Wikipedia community can definitely improve upon this.
9. Fewer opportunities than other sites for social relationships and a welcoming tone
   • While I think the Wikipedia community can improve upon being a welcoming social hub, I don't think this is all that desirable. The goal of Wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia. If you think of Wikipedia community like a news reporter staff room, we need to respect and be civil to one another, but it's not a requirement to form social relationships, nor is it desirable to promote it beyond friendly professionalism. When you have reporters inviting each other to parties, dating each other, or getting into fights with each other, then it takes away from their primary purpose of being there. Is increased social relationships better or worse for Wikipedia? I'm not sure, but I'm guessing it would be worse, just like it is for any kind of large organization.