Wikipedia is a mirror of the world’s gender biases

I'm not sure what the article is trying to convey. The example is absurd. Maybe the decline of the article was part of the global conspiracy of the patriarchy. Or maybe the person who declined it just had a bad day. Or maybe the website where the sources needed were published just had horrible UX and the two editors who cared just gave up. Same with the "breastfeeding" example. No causality proven.

The rest of the article is just incoherent numbers and elevator talks of Wikipedia. What is the point of all this? Of course the Wiki mirrors the real world, that's its very purpose, right? I'm not sure what the suggestion is here. Over-represent the achievements of minorities to generate a pseudo-equality is a really bad "solution". I'm pretty sure a big player like Wikipedia can contribute to equality but I don't see any meaningful example for that in the article...

> A 2015 study by Claudia Wagner, et al, found that, on English Wikipedia, the word “divorced” appears 4.4 times more frequently in a biography of a woman than of a man. For German and Russian Wikipedia that multiplier increases to 4.7 and 4.8 times, respectively. Why does divorce matter in the lives of women but not men? Prejudice can be very hard to see in ourselves.

Men on average are almost twice as likely to have never married. Men on average has an older age when entering the first marriage and has also lower divorce rates then women. Seem what the author is calling prejudice by the biography writers is a misrepresentation.

I'm very disappointed by this reply. This should have been a wake-up call about the deep sexism of Wikipedia, but this article seems to be spend most of its time saying it is other people's fault.

It is interesting there is a brief mention of a concrete measurable problem (Wikipedia articles for women talk about their divorces more), but there is no deeper introspection about the problem. The paper referenced is worth reading, it has many more details which deserve more attention from this article than picking out one specific data point.

Since I don't trust this kind of reporting, if we took all nobel winners and looked at their corresponding wikipedia articles how many will have a creation date that match the award.

I really doubt Dr. Donna Strickland will be the only match or that none of the others will be men.

Fair enough, but I bet Wikipedia also shows a bias toward English-speaking people - that is, I would assume that there are more articles on researchers who work in countries where English is one of the primary languages than on researchers from other countries.

This article does completely nothing except stiring the pot for no reason. It provides no value and author did zero research and just want to push his/her agenda.

Wonderful journalism we have come to.