The Wikipedia Gender Gap, Part III

In part I and part II, we discussed several of the gender gaps in Wikipedia. In this part, we'll talk about reverted edits, blocking, and their association with female and male editors. .

Blocking

The hypothesis here was that "Female editors are less likely to be blocked." However, there wasn't a statistically significant difference in the percentage of females blocked (4.39%) and males blocked (4.52%). Surprisingly, females were significantly more likely to be blocked indefinitely (3.85% and 3.32% respectively). Females were also significantly more likely to be reverted for vandalizing Wikipedia’s articles (3.26% and 2.11% respectively). This should be taken with a grain of salt, because the proportion of users who self-reported their gender and were blocked or reverted for vandalism was even smaller than the baseline.

Reverted Edits

Are female editors more likely to have their early edits reverted? To find out, the editors first "cleaned" the data from the reverted edits that were vandalism damage repair and took into account only reverts that were made within one week of an edit (more than 95% of the edits in the data set). For the seven first edits, the average reverting percent for women was significantly higher than that of men. Beyond those first edits, men and women's chances of having their edits reverted are similar.

Are women more likely to leave Wikipedia after their early edits were reverted? The authors answered this question by building a Cox regression model, to find out which factors are associated with changes in activity life span. The model included gender, the number of edits made in the first 24 hours of editing Wikipedia, the proportion of edits made in the first 24 hours

that were reverted for vandalism-related reasons, the proportion of edits made in the first 24

hours that were reverted, but not for vandalism-related reasons, and %RvNV×Gen, an interaction term between %RvNonVandal (the non-vandalism reverted edits) and gender, which was used to study the interaction between gender and reverts for non-vandalism reasons.

All the variables except for %RvNV×Gen were significantly associated with activity lifespan. The more edits an editor made during her/his first 24 hours, the longer her/his lifespan was likely to be. Shorter life span was associated with having early edits reverted. Even after taking said factors into account, being female still had a strong association with shorter lifespan.

While early reverts tend to make a lifespan shorter for both men and women, the likelihood of their departure wasn't gender-related. Female editor was just as likely to leave after being reverted as a male editor. In short, it's not that women "give up" more often than men when being reverted, it's that they were more likely to be reverted.

In Conclusion

Why doesn't Wikipedia have more women editors? This isn't the first time this question has been widely discussed. Last year, after a survey that found that only 13% of the Wikipedia's editors were women, the NYT published an article about the subject, which lead to some serious discussions and blog posts. Sue Gardner, Executive Editor of the Wikimedia Foundation, wrote a blog post including several of the reasons women supplied when asked why they hadn't edit Wikipedia. Answers varied and included reasons like the less-than-friendly interface, lack of time, lack of self-confidence, and an overall atmosphere of misogyny.

Now, since we know women *do* edit Wikis and *do* deal with less than friendly interfaces (have you ever, for example, tried to convince a Live Journal post to behave?) one must wonder if the main problem is, indeed, a culture that isn't women-friendly enough for most women to make the effort to fit in.

Lam, S., Uduwage, A., Dong, Z., Sen, S., Musicant, D. R., Terveen, L., & Terveen, J. (2011). WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender

Imbalance WikiSym’11, October 3–5, Mountain View, California

The Wikipedia Gender Gap, Part II

In part I we talked about the small percentage of female editors in Wikipedia and their shorter editing life span. In this part we'll talk about content areas female and male editor focus on, coverage of female and male-related topics and involvement in editing controversial entries.

Content areas

The authors divided the data from the January 2008 data dump into 8 main areas: Arts, Geography, Health, History, Science, People, Philosophy and Religion. Then, they checked the focus areas of each editor's activity. The authors found that men focused more on Geography and Science, while women focused more on People and Arts.

January 2008 Gender distribution of editors in eight interest areas. Editors can be categorized into more than one area

The reason these data look different than those presented earlier is that they are taken from a different data pool (2008 as opposed to the more recent data used earlier).

Topics Coverage

Are female-related topics covered in Wikipedia as well as male-related topics? The authors used their gender data to determine whether an article is of more interest to women or to men. Since there are so few female editors, the metrics were "subject to high relative variance and noise" so they had to use only high-activity articles where gender was known for at least 30 editors. Articles shorter than 100 bytes were exclude because they usually redirected to other articles. The authors ended up with a sample of 59,579 articles.

Articles were declared "male" if they were in the bottom quintile (lowest 20%) of female editing activity, "neutral" if they were in the third (center) quintile, and "female" if they were in the top quintile.

Male articles are significantly longer than female articles (33,301 and 28,434 bytes respectively, t-Test, p < 0.001). Neutral articles are the longest at 36,511 bytes. Since the authors used the articles' length as a crude measurement of quality, they concluded that coverage of female topics is indeed lacking. They hypothesized that neutral articles are longer because they appeal to editors of both genders and therefore receive more overall attention.

For an additional analysis, the authors used the movie recommender web site MovieLens, which has self-reported gender information from over 80% of users who started using MovieLens before May 2003 (when they stopped asking about gender). 32% of the site's users were females. The authors mapped each movie to its Wikipedia article and excluded movies with less than 10 known-gender raters or movies which had no article. The remaining data set included 5,850 movies. The Article Length was the dependent variable, "Movie Gender" the independent variable and Movie Popularity, Movie Quality and Movie Age were the control variables. Articles about "male" movies were longer than those about "female" movies.

However, when articles about Nobel Prize winners and recipients of the Academy Award for Best Actor/Actress were analysed, it was found that they are about of equal length. So, the length gender gap isn't noticeable for very popular and/or important articles.

Controversial Topics

The authors hypothesized that "Females tend to avoid controversial or contentious articles." They determined controversial articles according to whether the articles were protected or not, reasoning that Wikipedia tend to lock articles which are often vandalized or subject to content disputes. 5.20% of the “female” articles were protected, compared with 2.39% of the “male” articles. Female editors are actually more likely to be involved in controversial articles.

Next time: are women less likely to be blocked? Are edits by women more likely to be reverted?

Lam, S., Uduwage, A., Dong, Z., Sen, S., Musicant, D. R., Terveen, L., & Terveen, J. (2011). WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender
Imbalance WikiSym’11, October 3–5, Mountain View, California

The Wikipedia Gender Gap, Part I

Wikipedia editing is a men's club. We already talked here about the lack of Wikipedia female editors (barely 13% of the editors are women). However, that survey was self-selecting and most of the participants (75%) used Wikipedia in non-English languages. Now, Lam et al. (2011) present their analysis of the gender imbalance in English Wikipedia. They took most of their data out of the January 2011 data dump, as well as from the Wikipedia API and the January 2008 and 2010 data dumps.

In Wikipedia, editors can specify their gender in their accounts' settings, place a gender user box in their User page, or mention their gender in their User page description and discussion. The authors collected data from the accounts' settings and from the gender user boxes through the Wikipedia's API. They didn't check whether the editors refer to their gender somewhere else as that would have been too progressed for the techniques they used. The final sample included 113,848 users. Only 2.8% of the Wikipedia editors report their gender, but the authors found that dedicated editors tend to state their gender more often: while only 6.5% of the editors who had at least ten edits stated their gender, 14.1% of those who had over a hundred edits and 34.7% of those with at least 1,000 edits did so.

The overall gender gap is still in place

Out of the 38,497 editors who started edited in 2009 and specified their gender, only 16.1% were women. To add to this, 16.1% of those accounts may have belonged to women, but they only did 9.0% of the edits. Male editors make almost double the edits female editors do. Women are only 6% of the editors with over 500 edits.

Life and death of editors

An editors begins her or his life in the first edit date and "dies" after more than six months of inactivity. Women "die" sooner, while men tend to live on.

The gender gap is consistent

The gender identification methods described earlier were introduced to Wikipedia in different times (gender user boxes in December 2005 and gender preference settings in January 2009). Since men usually "live" longer in Wikipedia, the authors could only compare the users who have joined Wikipedia after a gender identification method was introduced (otherwise they would have just carried the survival rate bias on and on in the analysis). The gap has remained more-or-less the same since December 2005.

That's it for this part. Next time: Is there a difference in content areas between women and men? Do women editors tend to avoid confrontations?

Lam, S., Uduwage, A., Dong, Z., Sen, S., Musicant, D. R., Terveen, L., & Terveen, J. (2011). WP:Clubhouse? An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender
Imbalance WikiSym’11, October 3–5, Mountain View, California