13% seulement des contributeurs de Wikipedia sont des femmes. Si quelqu'un a une explication ... (autre que l'argument "Wikipedia est un outil de geeks"[1]) ?
"In 10 short years, Wikipedia has accomplished some remarkable goals. More than 3.5 million articles in English? Done. More than 250 languages? Sure.
But another number has proved to be an intractable obstacle for the online encyclopedia: surveys suggest that less than 15 percent of its hundreds of thousands of contributors are women."
Define Gender Gap? Look Up Wikipedia’s Contributor List (New York Times, 30/01/2011)
Notes
[1] ce qui en ferait sans doute le premier outil (non-commercial) de geeks à toucher une frange si large de la population
2 réactions
1 De cédric - 31/01/2011, 11:51
Sur les thèmes scientifiques, quand on voit la proportion de femmes dans ces filières (en France, en tout cas), c'est pas très étonnant de retrouver cette proportion.
Pour les autres thèmes, je ne te serai d'aucun secours...
2 De Eric C. - 31/01/2011, 13:27
Même sur les sujets qui devraient a priori attirer les contributrices, les articles sont semble-t-il bien plus concis :
"With so many subjects represented — most everything has an article on Wikipedia — the gender disparity often shows up in terms of emphasis. A topic generally restricted to teenage girls, like friendship bracelets, can seem short at four paragraphs when compared with lengthy articles on something boys might favor, like, toy soldiers or baseball cards, whose voluminous entry includes a detailed chronological history of the subject.
Even the most famous fashion designers — Manolo Blahnik or Jimmy Choo — get but a handful of paragraphs. And consider the disparity between two popular series on HBO: The entry on “Sex and the City” includes only a brief summary of every episode, sometimes two or three sentences; the one on “The Sopranos” includes lengthy, detailed articles on each episode. "