 | This is anessay. It contains the advice or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. This page is not an encyclopedia article, nor is it one ofWikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not beenthoroughly vetted by the community. Some essays represent widespread norms; others only represent minority viewpoints. |
Whenwriting about women on Wikipedia, ensure articles do not usesexist language, perpetuate sexist stereotypes, or otherwise demonstrate prejudice against women.
As of June 2019[update], 16.7% of editors on theEnglish Wikipedia who have declared a gender say that they are female.[1] The gender disparity, together with the need for reliable sources, contributes to thegender imbalance of our content; as of November 2020[update], only 18.64% of our biographies are about women.[2] This page may help to identify the subtle and more obvious ways in which titles, language, images, and linking practices can discriminate against women.
Among editors of the English Wikipedia who specify a gender in their preferences, 115,941 (16.7%) were female and 576,106 male as of 13 June 2019.[1][a]
As of 10 March 2020, the English Wikipedia hosted 1,693,225 biographies, 291,649 (18.27%) of which were about women.[2] As a result of sourcing issues, almost all[quantify] biographies before 1900 are of men.[5]
In 2009 the percentage ofbiographies of living persons (BLPs) about women was under 20%, but the numbers have been rising steadily since 2012–2013. As of 5 May 2019, the English Wikipedia hosted 906,720 BLPs, according to figures produced byAndrew Gray usingWikidata. Wikidata identified 697,402 of these as male and 205,117 as female.[b] The percentages of those that specified a gender were 77.06% male and 22.67% female; 0.27% had another gender.[6]
Avoid language and images that make male the "Self" and female the"Other".[7] Researchers have found that Wikipedia articles about women are more likely to contain words such aswoman,female andlady, than articles about men are to contain the male equivalents. This suggests that editors see male as the default or null gender, and that biographies are assumed to be of men unless otherwise stated.[8][9]
Avoid labelling a woman as a female author or female politician, unless her gender is explicitly relevant to the article. In April 2013 several media stories noted that editors on the English Wikipedia had begun moving women fromCategory:American novelists toCategory:American women novelists, while leaving men in the main category.[10][11] Linguists call thismarkedness. Treating a man who is a writer as a "writer" and a woman as a "woman writer" presents women as "marked", or the Other, requiring an adjective to differentiate them from the male default.[12]
In most situations, avoid referring to a woman by her first name, which can serve to infantilize her.[c] As a rule, after the initial introduction ("Susan Smith is an Australian anthropologist"), refer to women by their surnames ("Smith is the author of ...").Here is an example of an editor correcting the inappropriate use of a woman's first name.
First names are sometimes needed for clarity. For example, when writing about a family with the same surname, after the initial introductions they can all be referred to by first names. A first name might also be used when a surname is long and double-barreled, and its repetition would be awkward to read and write. When a decision is made to use first names for editorial reasons, use them for both women and men.
When discussing a pair of spouses or siblings who share a surname and who are both notable in their own right, both individuals should be introduced with their full names at the initial mention, despite sharing a surname. Leaving surnames to be presumed as the same among a married couple or other family members is generally problematic; and, in particular, notable women can be diminished if introduced in a fashion such as "Gay Talese and his wife Nan" or "Keith Relf and his sister Jane," with the woman's surname omitted.
According to Graells-Garrido et al. (2015), the lead is a "good proxy for any potential biases expressed by Wikipedia contributors".[14] The lead may be the only part of an article that is read—especially on mobile devices—so pay close attention to how women are described there. Again, giving women "marked" treatment can convey subtle assumptions to readers.
"Marked" treatment includes describing a person's appearance ahead of their achievements. For example, it is usually unnecessary to describe an individual's hair color, use the word "attractive", or otherwise detail their appearance, especially before clearly describing their significance to the article.
An article about a woman does not pass theFinkbeiner test if it mentions that "she's the first woman to ...." The test raises awareness of how gender becomes more important than a person's achievements.
Avoid language that places being a woman ahead of the subject's achievements. Opening the lead with "Smith was the first woman to do X", or "Smith was the first female X", immediately defines her in terms of men who have done the same thing, and it can inadvertently imply: "She may not have been a very good X, but at least she was the first woman."[15] When prioritizing that the subject is a "first woman", make sure it really is the only notable thing about her. Otherwise start with her own position or accomplishments, and mention the fact that she is a woman afterwards if it is notable.
For example, as of 10 March 2015, Wikipedia described Russian chemistAnna Volkova solely in terms of four first-woman benchmarks.[16] But the biographies ofIndira Gandhi andMargaret Thatcher, as of the same date, began with the positions they held, and only then said that they were the first or only women to have held them.[17]
Infoboxes are an important source ofmetadata (seeDBpedia) and a source of discrimination against women. For example, the wordspouse is more likely to appear in a woman's infobox than in a man's.[18]
When writing about a woman who works or has worked as a model but is not primarily known for that role, avoid{{Infobox model}}. It includes parameters for hair and eye colour and previously contained parameters for bust, hip, waist size and weight. The latter were removed in March 2016 followingthis discussion. If you add an infobox (they are not required), consider using{{Infobox person}} instead.
Wherever possible, avoid defining a notable woman, particularly in the title or first sentence, in terms of her relationships (wife/mother/daughter of). Do not begin a biography with: "Susan Smith is the daughter of historian Frank Smith and wife of actor John Jones. She is known for her work on game theory." An example of the kind of title the Wikipedia community has rejected isSarah Brown (wife of Gordon Brown) (now a redirect toSarah Jane Brown).
.jpg)
In 2015,ACM researchers found that Wikipedia articles about women are more likely to discuss their family, romantic relationships, and sexuality, while articles about men are more likely to contain words about cognitive processes and work. This suggests that Wikipedia articles objectify women.[19][d] Women's biographies mention marriage and divorce more often than men's biographies do.[21] Biographies that refer to the subject's divorce are 4.4 times more likely to be about a woman on the English Wikipedia. The figures are similar on the German, Russian, Spanish, Italian, and French Wikipedias.[e]
[T]he greater frequency and burstiness of words related to cognitive mechanisms in men, as well as the more frequent words related to sexuality in women, may indicate a tendency to objectify women in Wikipedia. ... [M]en are more frequently described with words related to their cognitive processes, while women are more frequently described with words related to sexuality. In the full biography text, the cognitive processes and work concerns categories are more bursty in men biographies, meaning that those aspects of men's lives are more important than others at the individual level."[15]
A woman's relationships are inevitably discussed prominently when essential to her notability, but try to focus on her own notable roles or accomplishments first. For example, consider starting articles about women who wereFirst Lady of the United States, which is a significant role, with "served as First Lady of the United States from [year] to [year]", followed by a brief summary of her achievements, rather than "is/was the wife of President X".
When discussing a woman married to a man, write "A is married to B" instead of "A is the wife of B", which casts the male as possessor. Avoid the expression "man and wife", which generalizes the husband andmarks the wife. Do not refer to a woman as Mrs. John Smith; when using an old citation that does this, try to find and use the woman's own name, as in: "Susan Smith (cited as Mrs. J. Smith)".
When introducing a woman as the parent of an article subject, avoid the common construction, "Smith was born in 1960 to John Smith and his wife, Susan." Consider whether there is an editorial reason to begin with the father's name. If not, try "Susan Jones and her husband, John Smith" or, if the woman has taken her husband's name, "Susan Smith,née Jones, and her husband, John", or "Susan and John Smith". Where there are several examples of "X and spouse" in an article, alternate the order of male and female names.
The focus on relationships in articles about women affects internal linking and, therefore, search engine results. One study found that women on Wikipedia are more linked to men than men are linked to women. When writing an article about a woman, if you include an internal link to an article about a man, consider visiting the latter to check that it includes reciprocal information about the relationship; if it merits mention in the woman's article, it is likely germane to his. Failure to mention the relationship in both can affect search algorithms in a way that discriminates against women.[f]
Usegender-neutral nouns when describing professions and positions:actor,author,aviator,bartender,chair,comedian,firefighter,flight attendant,hero,poet,police officer. Avoid adding gender (female pilot,male nurse) unless the topic requires it.
Do not refer to human beings as a group asman ormankind. Sentences such as "man has difficulty in childbirth" illustrate that these are not grammatically inclusive terms (trans men notwithstanding).[24] Depending on the context, usehumanity,humankind,human beings,women and men, ormen and women.
Some will set the cart before the horse, as thus: "My mother and my father are both at home", even as though the goodman of the house did wear no breeches, or that the gray mare were the better horse. ... in speaking at the least let us keep a natural order and set the man before the woman for manners' sake.
The order in which groups are introduced—man and woman,male and female,Mr. and Mrs.,husband and wife,brother and sister,ladies and gentlemen—has implications for their status, so consider alternating the order as you write.[26]
Do not refer to adult women as girls or ladies,[27] unless when quoting, using common expressions, proper nouns, or titles that cannot be avoided (e.g.,leading lady,lady-in-waiting,ladies' singles,Ladies' Gaelic Football Association,First Lady). The inappropriate use ofladies can be seen in a March 2015 revision ofMiss Universe 1956 which said there had been "30 young ladies in the competition", and in a March 2015 revision ofMixer dance, which discussed "the different numbers of men and ladies".[28]
The use of the generiche (masculinepronouns such ashe,him,his) is increasingly avoided in sentences that might refer to women and men or girls and boys.[29] Instead of "each student must hand inhis assignment", try one of the following.
| Nominative (subject) | Accusative (object) | Dependent possessive pronoun | Independent possessive pronoun | Reflexive |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| When I tell someone a joke,they laugh. | When I greet a friend, I hugthem. | When someone leaves the library,their book is stamped. | A friend lets me borrowtheirs. | Each person drives therethemselves (or, nonstandard,themself). |
Avoid using openly sexist sources unless there is a strong editorial reason to use them. For example, do not use pornographic or men's websites and magazines (such asAskMen,Playboy, andMaxim) in the biographies of female actors. Be careful not to include trivia that appeals predominantly to men. A source need not be overtly sexist to set a bad example. For example, most women are underrepresented in certain institutions that are slow to change. Often such institutions can be fine to use as a source for men, but for women, not so much.
Avoid images that objectify women. In particular, do not use pornography images in articles that are not about pornography.Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Images states that "photographs taken in a pornography context would normally be inappropriate for articles about human anatomy".
Except when the topic is necessarily tied to it (examples:downblouse andupskirt), avoid examples ofmale-gaze imagery, where women are presented as objects of heterosexual male appreciation.[34] When adding an image of part of a woman's body, consider cropping the image to focus on that body part.
When illustrating articles about women's health and bodies, use authoritative medical images wherever possible. Make sure the images accurately represent the topic and would not mislead readers. Be particularly careful when using "before and after" images that purport to show the benefits of a particular treatment. Check that the images really do show the same woman and that the source of the images can be trusted.
When writing about women's health, make sure medical claims are sourced according to the medical sourcing guideline,WP:MEDRS. As a rule this means avoidingprimary sources, which in this context refers to studies in which the authors participated. Rely instead on peer-reviewedsecondary sources that offer an overview of several studies. Secondary sources acceptable for medical claims includereview articles (systematic reviews andliterature reviews),meta-analyses andmedical guidelines. When in doubt, ask for help atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Titlow, John Paul (2 February 2015)."More Like Dude-ipedia: Study Shows Wikipedia's Sexist Bias",Fast Company.
Wilder, Charly (5 July 2013)."Ladies First: German Universities Edit Out Gender Bias",Der Spiegel.
General
Books, papers