Featured List nominated

Good articles nominated

Articles created and/or expanded

Did You Know...

• Nine Reasons Women Don’t Edit Wikipedia (in their own words) (2011)
• Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List (2011)
• A Culture of Editing Wars (2011)
• An Exploration of Wikipedia’s Gender Imbalance (2011) (excerpt:There are gender-associated imbalances in coverage quality, which impinges on Wikipedia’s goal of producing a high-quality encyclopedia. Not only would addressing the gender gap help resolve the quality disparity, it would also help increase diversity within Wikipedia’s collaborations, which prior research has shown to improve group productivity and retention rates as well as decision-making quality.)
• The Decline of Wikipedia (2013) (excerpt:The volunteer workforce that built the project’s flagship, the English-language Wikipedia has shrunk by more than a third since 2007 and is still shrinking. ... The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage.)
• Yes, Wikipedia Is Sexist -- That's Why It Needs You (2013)
• The women of Wikipedia: Closing the site's giant gender gap (2013) (excerpt:Women may have made a choice, but it was not based on whether they find the project interesting or have a contribution to make, but by the 'brogrammer' locker-room type of environment. ... Not only does a male-dominated culture lead to more biased articles, but also, research has shown that collective intelligence of a group goes up with increased social sensitivity, conversational turn-taking, and female participation.)
• Does Wikipedia’s sexism problem really prove that the system works? (2013) (excerpt:Sexism doesn’t always manifest in the form of raving misogynistic rants or harassment campaigns ... It is arguably more insidious and damaging when it surfaces in subtle and systemic instances of discrimination.)
• Wikipedia's founder Jimmy Wales: (2014)"It's mainly, basically, men ... and we really want to expand the community, we want to diversify the community, because we know that it helps lead to quality in other areas. The goal [that we set of increasing the number of women participants to 25% by 2015] completely failed. ... And we're really doubling down our efforts now. We realize we didn't do enough. There's a lot of things that need to happen to help improve that."

• Wikipedia's Hostility to Women (2015)
• Why Do So Few Women Edit Wikipedia? (2016) (excerpt:In 2008, a survey found that less than 13% of Wikipedia contributors worldwide were women. The free online encyclopedia that “anyone can edit” was outed as being mostly run by men. A follow up survey in 2011 found similar results: globally, 9% of contributors were women ...Meanwhile, there appeared to be no significant gender difference in readership rates. ... Even though it is the 7th most visited website in the world and averages more than 18 billion page views per month, the number of editors for the English-language site has been shrinking.)
• Copyright Law Makes Artificial Intelligence Bias Worse (2017) (excerpt:[AI] researchers have gone to town with Wikipedia: most AI systems now crawl the online encyclopedia to learn facts ... Such a stark gender disparity can cause articles—especially those that characterize women or address issues that particularly concern them—to be written in a way that is biased. Therefore, any AI trained on it will be too.)
• Women are launching a Wikipedia food fight against male-heavy cookery content (2018)
• Inside the Fight to Change Wikipedia's Gender Problem (2018)
• "Too Soon" to count? How gender and race cloud notability considerations on Wikipedia (2023)

>Criticism of Wikipedia (Wikipedia's article):In the online magazine Slate, David Auerbach criticized the Arbitration Committee's decision to block a woman indefinitely without simultaneously blocking her "chief antagonists" in the December 2014 Gender Gap Task Force case. He mentions his own experience with what he calls "the unblockable"—abrasive editors who can get away with complaints against them because there are enough supporters, and that he had observed a "general indifference or even hostility to an outside opinion" on the English Wikipedia.
>Gender bias on Wikipedia (Wikipedia article):A 2021 study found that, in April 2017, 41% of biographies nominated for deletion were [of] women despite only 17% of published biographies being women.[1]
>Wikimedia Foundation:Wikipedia needs more women. Let’s close the gender gaps and change the stats.