Wikipedia’s article on gender bias on Wikipedia is fascinating at the meta-level. It starts with basic facts:
In a 2018 survey covering 12 language versions of Wikipedia and some other Wikimedia Foundation projects, 90% of contributors reported their gender as male, 8.8% as female, and 1% as other. Among contributors to the English Wikipedia, 13.6% identified as female and 1.7% as other.[5] Other studies since 2011, mostly focused on the English Wikipedia, have estimated the percentage of female editors at up to 20%.[3][6]
Wikipedia’s articles about women are less likely to be included, expanded, neutral, and detailed.[7][8] A 2021 study found that, in April 2017, 41% of biographies nominated for deletion were women despite only 17% of published biographies being women.[9]
Then we have a section on “Causes” – potential explanations for editors’ gender imbalance, anchored by Sue Gardner’s nine-point list:
- A lack of user-friendliness in the editing interface.
- Not having enough free time.
- A lack of self-confidence.
- Aversion to conflict and an unwillingness to participate in lengthy edit wars.
- Belief that their contributions are too likely to be reverted or deleted.
- Some find its overall atmosphere misogynistic.
- Wikipedia culture is sexual in ways they find off-putting.
- Being addressed as male is off-putting to women whose primary language has grammatical gender.
- Fewer opportunities for social relationships and a welcoming tone compared to other sites.
Conspicuously absent from the list of possible causes is the default explanation, also known as the “obvious explanation” and the “common-sense explanation.” Namely: On average, men enjoy editing Wikipedia much more than women do. While the vast majority of both genders would find editing Wikipedia boring, the small minority of males who like creating and correcting articles on technical topics for free vastly outnumbers the even smaller minority of women who like creating and correcting articles on technical topics for free.
The only time the article even mentions the default explanation is not in the Causes sections, but way down in “Reactions,” when it allows Heather Mac Donald to state the default explanation without further commentary:
The most straightforward explanation for the differing rates of participation in Wikipedia—and the one that conforms to everyday experience—is that, on average, males and females have different interests and preferred ways of spending their free time.
What makes all this fascinating at the meta-level? Well, riddle me this: When you’re writing an encyclopedia article on X, why on Earth would you virtually fail to even mention the default explanation for X? Even if the default explanation happens to be wrong, you would expect authors to clearly state, “The default explanation, surprisingly, turns out to be wrong. Here’s why.”
So what’s going on? Getting meta, there is a default explanation for the failure to mention something’s default explanation. Namely: Fear. Since the default explanation is what immediately comes to mind, people naturally blurt it out. Unless, of course, they bite their tongues lest they get their heads bitten off.
This is most obvious for religion. If someone claims a miracle happened, the default explanation (as Hume pointed out) is that the “miracle” is bogus. The speaker is either deceived or a deceiver. If no one voices this default explanation, the reason is probably that they fear religious wrath.
The same goes for politics. If someone claims that Our Dear Leader is the greatest man who ever lived, the default explanation is that this is absurd hyperbole. The speaker is either deceived or a deceiver. If no one voices this default explanation, the reason is probably that they fear political wrath.
And this, I warrant, is precisely what’s going on in Wikipedia’s article on gender bias on Wikipedia. The default explanation is that the gender “bias” is no bias at all, but a reflection of the different ways that men and women like to spend their free time. And the default explanation for the failure to even mention this default explanation is fear. Fear of what? Of feminist wrath, the wrath of their allies, and the feigned wrath of all the other people who hope to avoid becoming their targets.
Of course, I’m open to the possibility that this default explanation is wrong. But if we don’t default to the default, that’s strong evidence in favor of the default. And if calling it the default provokes a wave of anger, that’s practically settles the issue in the default’s favor.
READER COMMENTS
Daniel Klein
Dec 8 2021 at 1:14pm
Great post, Bryan, thank you.
Catherine Hakim is a leading scholar on disparate preferences. She summarized the ideas and findings in an article for Econ Journal Watch.
Vive la diversité!
Levi Mitze-Circiumaru
Dec 8 2021 at 2:54pm
A simplistic objection: But isn’t it sexist to posit that men and women differ in their preferences, even on average? (I’m curious how someone who sees the reasonableness of your argument responds to this objection.)
P.S. Thank you for your interesting, thought-provoking contributions to Econlog! I refresh this page 2 or 3 times a day to see if you’ve posted anything new. I’ve loved every book you’ve written and am always eager for new content. I’m especially anticipating your book on poverty (who to blame?). Please don’t let it fall by the wayside!
Levi Mitze-Circiumaru
Dec 8 2021 at 3:00pm
P.P.S. I can’t contain myself… Dr. Caplan, you’re my intellectual hero! No other writer or thinker has had a bigger influence on my own intellectual development (Steven Pinker is a close second). I just have to say thanks. Please never stop writing or speaking.
Levi Mitze-Circiumaru
Dec 8 2021 at 3:02pm
How would you respond to simplistic objection such as, “Isn’t it sexist to posit that men and women differ in their preferences, even on average?”
robc
Dec 9 2021 at 9:36am
Response: No.
Jon Murphy
Dec 9 2021 at 9:51am
My response would be:
Why would we expect men and women to have identical preferences? Even ignoring the vast swaths of academic literature that discuss various trait differences between men and women (even taking into account upbringing and cultural factors), why would people be identical?
Levi Mitze-Circiumaru
Dec 9 2021 at 3:16pm
If men and women differ, it’s because we socialize them to be different. Thus, when surveys and other studies show that men and women express or exhibit different characteristics on average, it’s just evidence of the efficacy of the socialization they experienced growing up. You say there are studies that control for upbringing and other cultural factors, but how can you control for these when the socialization that genders people is near-ubiquitous among the population being studied? That is, if a heteronormative background culture is responsible for making men and women seem to have different characteristics, and if those background cultural influences are ubiquitous, how can they be controlled for? (I’m still playing devil’s advocate, by the way. I just want to discover some good approaches for countering such arguments.)
Zeke5123
Dec 11 2021 at 1:09pm
Differences between male and female exist in the vast majority of animals (especially mammals). Are those differences also just social constructs?
Levi Mitze-Circiumaru
Dec 13 2021 at 1:32am
There are clearly physical differences between male and female animals, and mammals and humans in particular, but the question at hand is whether there are psychological differences. Maybe females of non-human mammalian species have as much of a psychological urge to achieve a dominant position in their social hierarchies as the males of the species do but are stymied by physically imposing males who dominate them by force. Under this reading, sexism is as much of an issue in non-human species as it is in human societies. I’m not sure if raising the consciousness of oppressed female animals will ever be a viable endeavor. It’s just so difficult to achieve social justice! (I’m not sure I’m playing devil’s advocate very well at this point haha.)
Levi Mitze-Circiumaru
Dec 10 2021 at 1:50am
But there is a ready explanation for professed sex differences in preferences: boys and girls are socialized by our heteronormative culture to exhibit such differences. Unsurprisingly, given the sexist legacy of the West (not to mention other societies), girls have been socialized not to exhibit a strong preference for making their voices heard, even on open platforms like Wikipedia. Instead of taking research that purports to find sex differences at face value, isn’t it more just to assume that all people regardless of gender have equal potential to be and do anything, and that if they don’t exhibit that equal potential in aggregate statistical outcomes it is because our society has arranged it to be so through a pervasive culture of patriarchal brainwashing that socializes women from birth to adopt behaviors and attitudes that keep them permanently in a position below men on the sociological totem pole? (Still playing devil’s advocate. I’m curious for ideas on how to respond to arguments like these.)
[Comment edited at commenter’s request. Econlib Ed.]
Mark Z
Dec 10 2021 at 11:33pm
I can think of categories of responses to this: 1) Men and women differ for biological reasons that affect behavior and personality, so one can’t readily attribute differences to socialization. 2) Even behavioral differences caused by ‘social factors’ aren’t necessarily malicious or harmful; e.g., people of Italian descent eat more pasta than people of Irish descent, doubtless a social phenomenon, but no one would assume that this social difference must be contrived by one of those two groups to disadvantage the other. 3) Socially caused differences can disadvantage men as well (e.g. see many behavioral differences that reduce men’s life expectancy); it’s not clear that it’s actually good for men that the spend more time editing wikipedia.
Mark Z
Dec 10 2021 at 11:35pm
*three* categories. I somehow forgot the ‘three.’
Levi Mitze-Circiumaru
Dec 11 2021 at 1:29am
Thanks, Mark. All three of those approaches seem compelling to me, especially your 3rd category. It’s not clear that, on balance, differences that exist (whether socially caused or otherwise) put men in a more advantageous position than women. Women may have been expected traditionally to keep house and raise children (and they express attitudes that indicate they do in fact value these pursuits more highly than men do on average*), but men were expected to risk life and limb in war and other physically dangerous endeavors when women were not (and men seem to express a greater affinity for such activities*). I’m sure there are other examples of traditional gender norms that balance the overall desirability of being one sex over the other, but none come to mind right now. Thanks for the interesting discussion!
* I think I’ve encountered survey data (in some book or other) testifying to these “facts”, but I can’t remember where. Please correct me if, to the best of your knowledge, those empirical claims are inaccurate.
Levi Mitze-Circiumaru
Dec 10 2021 at 2:17am
(Sorry for the sloppy comment. I didn’t mean to include a partial copy of your comment in mine, Jon. Wish I could delete and repost…)
[–Hi, Levi. You can usually edit, delete, or repost your comments by emailing us at webmaster@econlib.org. Please let us know if you would like to change a comment you previously submitted. When you email us about any edits, deletions, or re-postings you want, we can likely help.–Econlib Ed.]
Kevin Jackson
Dec 8 2021 at 3:11pm
To be fair, point #4 (and #5, which is very similar to #4) does capture a bit of the enjoyment aspect. If women avoid edit wars relative to men, then men seek out edit wars relative to women. But that is only part of Wikipedia, and it’s written in a way to hide the main point.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Dec 8 2021 at 3:50pm
??? But the list, or some of the items on it, could be be the reasons that men enjoy editing Wikipedia more than women do, not an alternative putative reasons provided for fear of opprobrium.The comment on religion seems equally off. If a Muslim friend says something about Mohamed riding up to Heaven from the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem, and I do not start to provide him with a naturalistic alternative to this miracle, it is not becasue I fear the power of Religion. It’s just becasue I’m not (at least in this regard, a jerk.
Mark Z
Dec 10 2021 at 11:46pm
Why would that make you a jerk? Are only religious people allowed to express opinions on explanations for putative miracles? When a topic is broached, I don’t think expressing the correct opinion on that topic can ever make one a jerk.
steve
Dec 8 2021 at 6:26pm
Who on wikipedia would bite your head off and why would they care? It has always seemed to me that at least half of the guys doing stuff on wiki are actively looking for a war.
Steve
Jose Pablo
Dec 8 2021 at 6:34pm
I don’t really think the explanation is fear.
I do think that the real explanation is that, quoting your good friend Huemer, “Human beings have a passion for outrage”
https://fakenous.net/?cat=20
“Outrage” makes us feel so good!
The main problem with your “default explanation” is that it does not produce any “outrage”, so what is it good for? The absence of the “outrage less” default explanation is not surprising at all.
Actually, going meta, the main outrage is the one cause by the “absence of the default explanation among the explanations” which is, at the end of the day, the main reason why you find it worthy to write this post
Jose Pablo
Dec 8 2021 at 11:35pm
The last paragraph should say:
Actually, going meta, the outrage cause by the “absence of the default explanation among the explanations” is, at the end of the day, the main reason why you find it worthy to write this post
Yaakov Schatz
Dec 8 2021 at 7:29pm
As Wikipedia is written by volunteers, the obvious reason for mistakes in Wikipedia is that people make mistakes and that nobody is getting paid to correct those mistakes. The corresponding Hebrew article cites a study:
http://www.essachess.com/index.php/jcs/article/viewFile/250/292
claiming that this study states that the bias is due to preferences and that women prefer Facebook and Twitter over sharing knowledge. The Hebrew article then goes on to say that meaningful social communication is more attractive to women. Why is this study not mentioned on the English Wikipedia? Basically because nobody bothered to put it there. I would suggest you try on your own, but if you are not accustomed to writing on Wikipedia that mght not be easy. So if you want I am willing to help you. Either make the required edit and email me when it is reverted, or send me the text you would ike to add / modify by email and I will do it. As long as we strictly stay in the limits of what is claimed in the study, and reference the study, there should be no reason that the reference would be removed. I do not bet, but I think we have over a 90% chance of the modification lasting for at least a year.
Russ Nelson
Dec 8 2021 at 9:46pm
I would take that bet. With “a 90% chance”, I would expect ten to one odds that the change would be reverted within less than a year.In reality it would be reverted within less than a day, most likely less than an hour. Why? Because most of the people who edit Wikipedia have nothing better to do than edit Wikipedia, and that means watching for changes in “their” articles.
Pajser
Dec 8 2021 at 11:19pm
Lack of self-confidence (# 3) is an explanation that could raise suspicions of sexism, especially if it is not explicitly written that lack of self-confidence is the result of repression. So, probably, the authors or authors of the article on Wikipedia were not particularly afraid of accusations of sexism.
A simpler explanation for why women’s preference is not mentioned: the authors did not think as deeply as Caplan suggests. Not all errors have a psychoanalytic cause.
Jon Murphy
Dec 9 2021 at 10:03am
That doesn’t work as an explanation. They do cite what Bryan Caplan discusses, but it is buried deep into the article. Bryan is asking why the obvious and most simple explanation is buried so deep.
J McG
Dec 8 2021 at 11:26pm
I’m always fascinated to read posts about Wikipedia written by outsiders. I don’t so much edit Wikipedia these days as try to help other, usually new, editors as they begin to learn the ins and outs of how Wikipedia works.
As in most other reporting, the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect is something to keep in mind.
For instance, the disparity between the fraction of articles about women and the fraction of deletion proposals for articles about women may sound alarming, but it may well be a natural result of the efforts to increase the number of articles about women – see WikiProject Women in Red. The project holds regular drives to encourage creation of articles about women. There are lists of suggestions and some mentoring available. Most new editors need to first gain a considerable amount of experience before they can successfully put together an article that meets the standards Wikipedia, as a community, has built up in response to hoaxes, self-promotion, and other abuse in the past.
A substantial fraction of the new contributions from these drives makes the cut, but some, possibly more than half, don’t. So they are nominated for deletion. That nomination is a plea for help – “can someone fix this?” A fair number of editors take the time to try to save articles like this, but the standards are necessarily tough and rescue is sometimes impossible; the article has to be deleted.
When writing about people, you can’t just write a bunch of true stuff and post it as an article. Every statement has to be supported by a reliable, published source. (“Published by respected newspapers or magazines or their online equivalents, with a skeptical eye watching for publicity efforts and other suspect reporting.) Finding the right sort of sources is getting harder and harder.
BC
Dec 9 2021 at 2:38am
For the woke, sexism is the default explanation for gender disparities, even disparities in preferences. (See Thomas Lee Hutcheson’s comment above for example.)
“While the vast majority of both genders would find editing Wikipedia boring, the small minority of males who like creating and correcting articles on technical topics for free vastly outnumbers the even smaller minority of women who like creating and correcting articles on technical topics for free.”
Whenever I read that women bear a “disproportionate burden” of household chores, I wonder why men are said to out earn women (outside the home) instead of bearing a disproportionate burden of earning (non-home production) income for the family. I think I like this example better though. Why does no one refer to men bearing a disproportionate burden of maintaining Wikipedia for free?
Levi Mitze-Circiumaru
Dec 10 2021 at 2:13am
Framing definitely has a big impact on how you interpret the data (or, perhaps, your framing is an expression of how you interpret the data). And a double standard in how you frame such issues when they arise with regards to men versus women can be a powerful rhetorical tool for twisting any evidence into apparent support for your position. Grappling with “woke” pronouncements can often feel like participating in a game of “heads I win, tails you lose” for precisely this reason I think. John McWhorter’s new book, “Woke Racism”, has an interesting list of couplets of contradictory “woke” dictums (with regards to race issues) that are reminiscent of the double standard you point to in your comment. I highly recommend the book, by the way.
Comments are closed.