Paper detail

First Women, Second Sex: Gender Bias in Wikipedia

Contributing to history has never been as easy as it is today. Anyone with access to the Web is able to play a part on Wikipedia, an open and free encyclopedia. Wikipedia, available in many languages, is one of the most visited websites in the world and arguably one of the primary sources of knowledge on the Web. However, not everyone is contributing to Wikipedia from a diversity point of view; several groups are severely underrepresented. One of those groups is women, who make up approximately 16% of the current contributor community, meaning that most of the content is written by men. In addition, although there are specific guidelines of verifiability, notability, and neutral point of view that must be adhered by Wikipedia content, these guidelines are supervised and enforced by men. In this paper, we propose that gender bias is not about participation and representation only, but also about characterization of women. We approach the analysis of gender bias by defining a methodology for comparing the characterizations of men and women in biographies in three aspects: meta-data, language, and network structure. Our results show that, indeed, there are differences in characterization and structure. Some of these differences are reflected from the off-line world documented by Wikipedia, but other differences can be attributed to gender bias in Wikipedia content. We contextualize these differences in feminist theory and discuss their implications for Wikipedia policy.

preprint2015arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access3 authors1 topic

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.