Grants:IdeaLab/Bring positive discrimination to Wikipedia
Project idea
What is the problem you're trying to solve?
Only 13% of Wikipedia contributors identify themselves as female. Women's point of view is severely underrepresented.
What is your solution?
The gender gap has been successfully addressed by parliaments and political systems around the world by establishing a minimum quota of female candidates/members. If we imitate this schema in our own system of administrators, bureaucrats and members of the arbitration committee, we would give visibility and relevance to women's role in Wikipedia. New female editors would get the message that this is not a gentlemen's club. Also, because of an increased feminine involvement in conflict resolution, Wikipedia is likely to slowly tone down its current testosterone-driven aggressiveness, which I believe is a major deterrent to female editors and newcomers in general. It would be a virtuous circle, which would come along with an improved retention rate of new editors.
Goals
Long term goal is to increase female participation rate in Wikipedia's active editors count.
Get Involved
Participants
Endorsements
- Edorse! Like has happened (and still is happening) in big companies, after giving them lots of time to include women at top positions on voluntary basis, it is now time for an obligation and for positive discrimation. Ellywa (talk) 16:15, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Endorse; let's not throw out ideas here. I note with a mixture of amusement, despondence and impending alcoholism that a proposal attempting to correct for testosterone-driven aggressive culture has been opposed, on the grounds that it's solving a problem that doesn't exist and is too far, by people whose feedback includes comments like "Insane idea" and "feminist crap". The cognitive dissonance, it burns. Ironholds (talk) 18:29, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Endorse, hey, just dropping in for the first time in months. Men suck; it seems obvious to establish explicitly progressive policy in order to resolve the translated suckiness (i.e., there are a lot of men, so let's make it fewer of them). I couldn't agree more with Ironholds' observation. Blurpeace 20:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Why is it not possible to post a comment that does not endorse this idea on this page? Why are the opposition compelled to post on the Talk Page? This layout seems to encourage a very biased view of the proposal. Most strange. Zedshort (talk) 21:43, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Because, of course, that would make the proposal look bad. And we can't have that. That might make it fail. Only those that agree with something should be allowed to speak. Didn't you grow up in a society that oppresses all views but those of the mad partisans, Zedshort? Get with the program! <sarcasm> Tharthan (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- This seems like "discussion" of the way the page is being maintained and not actually for this endorsement in particular. More appropriate for the talk page of this page or that of the guidelines in which the the action were executed, no? Blurpeace 21:56, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
- Because, of course, that would make the proposal look bad. And we can't have that. That might make it fail. Only those that agree with something should be allowed to speak. Didn't you grow up in a society that oppresses all views but those of the mad partisans, Zedshort? Get with the program! <sarcasm> Tharthan (talk) 21:52, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Expand your idea
Do you want to submit your idea for funding from the Wikimedia Foundation?