Wikipedia and gender equality

Wikipedia is a widely used online encyclopedia that could be edited by anyone with access to the website. Launched in 2001, it is a hallmark of open-source collaboration on the internet with its speed of expansion and range of content. In the first year that it was launched, it reached 250,000 articles in 18 different languages. By 2006, the number passed one million.

The easy-to-edit process of Wikipedia raised questions about its accuracy. In 2005, a study by the peer-reviewed Nature magazine shows that among the science entries on Wikipedia, the number of inaccuracies is at the similar level as mistakes in Britannica, which was considered the most scholarly among encyclopedias. What about how people presented history and politics? Could people be accurate if they are presenting on subjects they are personally or politically invested in? What if the minority view is right?

In 2012, the Atlantic reported on such an example. Timothy Messer-Kruse, who spent years researching the Haymarket affair, found evidence that opposed the Wikipedia narrative of the event. After he edited the page with explanation of his evidence, however, his edits were denied by Wikipedia gatekeepers on the ground that his view is a “minority view”, meaning that not enough people held his perspective. Because of the “winner take it all” model of Wikipedia, the voices of the minority risk not being heard at all.

This is particularly important for the study of representation of gender related issues on Wikipedia, as the minority number of women editors indicates a lack of female voice. A survey in 2008 showed that only 13% of Wikipedia editors were female. A 2011 survey showed similar results, where 9% of the global editors were women. Moreover, the gender bias also manifests in the content and editing process on Wikipedia. According to a report by New York Times, fewer than 20% of biographies on Wikipedia are profiles of women. There were also reports of female editors being harassed by their male colleagues on Wikipedia. In the virtual discussion of back-and-forth editing, comments could turn to personal attacks. A Wikipedia editor commented through personal experience that those who call themselves feminists have a greater chance of being targeted (New York Times).

The importance of Wikipedia as a venue to shape public memory and the consequences of gender imbalance in Wikipedia have caused individuals and activist groups to take action. Wikipedia, though virtual, has become a new battle field for a feminist movement. Among them are Nature, the peer-reviewed journal, who are adding Wikipedia profiles of women scientists; Art + Feminism, a grassroot activist group that hosts community organized “edit-a-thons” to empower editors to increase gender equality in Wikipedia; and Ilana Ross, a speech writer at West Wing Writers who spearheaded the company’s effort to increase women presence on Wikipedia. Some of these change makers are organized; some are not. In the MeToo movement, as the online community changed the narratives of high-profile sex offenders through edits, the identities of these editors are yet to be understood. Through this research, I will investigate who are the editors changing the pages of high-profile sex offenders on Wikipedia, their edit history, and whether they were editing the pages with an intention of raising awareness for sexual harassment.