"

 prep to update article - 2015 sources & citations 

peer reviewed

 Klein, Max, and Piotr Konieczn. ""Wikipedia in the World of Global Gender Inequality Indices."" Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Open Collaboration - OpenSym '15 (2015): n. pag. Web. . While Wikipedia's editor gender gap is important but difficult to measure, its biographical gender gap can more readily be measured. We correlate a Wikipedia-derived gender inequality indicator (WIGI), with four widespread gender inequality indices in use today (GDI, GEI, GGGI, and SIGI). Analysing their methodologies and correlations to Wikipedia, we find evidence that Wikipedia's bias in biographical coverage is related to the gender bias in positions of social power.

Kalla, Joshua L., and Peter M. Aronow. ""Editorial Bias in Crowd-Sourced Political Information."" PLOS ONE PLoS ONE 10.9 (2015): n. pag. Web. . In this paper, we examine what kinds of biases exist in crowd-sourced information on Wikipedia. Because any user can also be an editor, no one person with any particular ideological or partisan motivation should be able to control Wikipedia. Yet scholars have recognized the tension that comes from distributed, crowd-sourced platforms like Wikipedia. On the one hand, crowd-sourced information platforms create opportunities for citizens to challenge media-driven narratives. On the other, these platforms may be captured by the self-interested who have the greatest motivation to shape them for their own benefit.

mass media

 Many hands make Wikipedia work. (2015, December 10). Sydney Morning Herald [Sydney, Australia], p. 20. Retrieved from http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.sfpl.org/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA436910759&sid;=summon&v;=2.1&u;=sfpl_main&it;=r&p;=STND&sw;=w&asid;=ec97e622b712616c8a2c1ff0dc58b220 We all use Wikipedia. It's hard to avoid. On just about any Google search, Wiki tops the list. Because it's also astoundingly comprehensive, intelligible and reliable, it has become the ubiquitous go-to start point. Yet almost the first research rule our kids learn is Wiki-denial. Read it if you must but, never, honey, never ever admit to it. ... So yes, Wikipedia is flawed. Above all, it needs more female input. But the obvious response, for you-and-me users who encounter something stupid or biased or just plain wrong, is to hop in there and fix it. I'll see you there, yes? Oh, and honey? Cite away!

 Wikipedia: A bias against women? (2014, Apr 13). The National Retrieved from http://ezproxy.sfpl.org/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/1515588882?accountid=35117 Prof Bruckner's hope is that having systemic data on the extent and reasons behind bias could mobilise resources to deal with the issue. It might help, she suggests, if universities encouraged staff to become Wikipedia contributors, ensuring important academic work does not get ignored. They could, for example, expand the programmes some of them already run for academics on writing newspaper editorial columns - another area where female writers tend to be heavily outnumbered - to cover Wikipedia contributions. ""That is not something we usually do. We're scientists, we're not in the business of marketing our research. We have no training to do this,"" said Prof Bruckner. She admits she has never contributed to Wikipedia herself. The apparent bias could also be partly redressed by focusing on general initiatives to improve Wikipedia's quality. For Prof Bruckner, the Wikipedia project may also offer pointers about how the value of academic work in general is assessed. ""There is the gender issue, but also how people think about scholarship and what's reputable scholarship or not,"" she said."