Although Wikipedia is by far the most famous and the most widely used, there are hundreds if not thousands of online encyclopedias that, taken together, represent a massive repository of knowledge about the world. Leave it to Wikipedia to catalog many of them in a single consolidated entry that lists over 400 online encyclopedias.
As Women’s History Month comes to a close, we have a question: how are women represented in these resources?
Online Encyclopedias replicate patterns from their ancestors
Online encyclopedias have evolved from traditional printed volumes to dynamic digital platforms, offering instantaneous access to a vast array of topics. On the one hand, arguably this evolution has facilitated greater inclusivity by breaking down barriers to entry and democratizing access to knowledge. On the other hand, however, historical biases and systemic inequalities continue to influence the representation of women in these digital spaces.
For example, it is well known that fewer than 20% of Wikipedia's biographies are about women, but how about the other hundreds of online encyclopedias? They are less widely used, of course, but they also have audiences and user-bases and, importantly, their entries often appear in Google searches or AI chatbots. Exact statistics about representation of women are harder to find in many of these cases, but we have some indication that the percentages are similar. For example, see “Gender Bias in Wikipedia and Britannica” (2011) by Joseph Reagle and Lauren Rhue, in which thousands of biographical subjects from six sources are compared against the English-language Wikipedia and the online Encyclopædia Britannica with respect to coverage, gender representation, and article length. Reagle and Rhue confirm that (in 2011) “women are 16% of the gender-known population of the Wikipedia list and its analyzed articles. Women comprise only 14% of the Britannica articles”.
Wikipedia Tackles the Problem -- But With Limited Results So Far
To its credit, Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation are very aware of this problem on their own platforms (see Wikipedia Needs More Women), and it is possible that other online encyclopedias are taking similar measures. The Wikimedia Foundation's own research, for example, is the widely quoted source of the “less than 20%” figure mentioned above. In a LinkedIn post earlier this month, the Wikimedia Foundation said. “Wikipedia's vision is of a world in which everyone can freely share in the sum of all human knowledge. But we cannot achieve that when we are missing so much knowledge about women” and they called on volunteers and others to “join us in closing the gender knowledge gap on Wikipedia and across the Wikimedia projects”, adding that “there are many ways you can help us”. But still the problem remains. In fact, despite concerted efforts, the percentage has only gone up by 5% in the past decade.
In Wikipedia’s classic meta fashion, the Wikipedia entry on gender bias in Wikipedia is a solid analysis of the problem and its causes. However, this entry oddly dodges the single biggest cause of the disparity: Wikipedia’s “notability” criteria, which defines notability in a way that structurally inhibits new entries about women, who are less likely to be featured for their accomplishments in the mainstream media sources that validate and confirm “notability”. This facet of the issue is explained in Francesca Tripodi’s stellar 2023 article, “Ms. Categorized: Gender, notability, and inequality on Wikipedia”. We have also commented on the notability criteria question in our recent blogpost, “The Problem of Invisibility of Underrepresented Groups”.
And many members of the Wikipedia community -- Wikipedians -- are aware of these dynamics. As Adele Godoy Vrana, Anasuya Sengupta, and Siko Bouterse put it, "We love Wikipedia. As readers, and as contributors. But we also hate what it can do to many of us from marginalized communities around the world"
Wikipedians also recognize another aspect of this problem that is often mentioned: the community itself (writers, editors) needs to be more inclusive. As Phoebe Ayers, an active Wikipedian, puts it "Wikipedia needs diversity. To cover the world well, the project needs people of all genders, ethnicities, geographic origins, languages, and socioeconomic backgrounds to participate".
Why It Matters
Historical marginalization and patriarchal norms have led to the erasure of women's contributions from mainstream narratives, as is clear by a cursory review of the information provided by many online encyclopedias. Biographical content creation on platforms like Wikipedia relies heavily on existing sources, perpetuating the cycle of gender bias present in historical records and scholarly literature. Additionally, systemic issues such as the gender gap in STEM fields and leadership positions further limit the pool of notable women recognized in these encyclopedias.
This lack of representation of womenin online encyclopedias has far-reaching consequences for knowledge dissemination and societal perceptions. On the broadest level, these gaps in representation represent and perpetuate cultural imbalances and inequities of power and influence. Wikipedia is a dominant source of knowledge in the world and thus has what Srilatha Batliwala calls “agenda-setting power [which] is often hidden and behind the scenes: it determines who sets the agenda and how; what issues, perspectives, and approaches are amplified, and which are undermined or ignored; what is considered important and what is not".
More concretely, these lacunae perpetuate the notion that women's achievements are less noteworthy or significant than those of men, reinforcing gender stereotypes and diminishing the visibility of female role models. This not only undermines the confidence and aspirations of women and girls but also hinders efforts towards gender equality and empowerment. Furthermore, the skewed representation of women distorts historical narratives and perpetuates a skewed understanding of the past. By neglecting women's contributions, online encyclopedias present an incomplete and biased view of history, contributing to the marginalization of women's voices and experiences. This distortion not only does a disservice to women but also undermines the integrity and credibility of these encyclopedic sources as repositories of objective knowledge.
Addressing the Gender Gap
Closing the gender gap in online encyclopedias poses significant challenges but is essential for creating more inclusive and accurate repositories of knowledge. In another blogpost, we have commented on the emerging ecosystem of excellent organizations that are seeking to address this, including Whose Knowledge and Invisible Giants.
One major obstacle is the systemic biases embedded in the processes of content creation and curation. Wikipedia's reliance on volunteer editors, who are predominantly male, perpetuates gender disparities in biographical coverage. Addressing this requires -- as Wikipedia knows -- concerted efforts to diversify the editor base and promote awareness of gender bias among contributors. Moreover, initiatives aimed at increasing the visibility of women in online encyclopedias are crucial. Organizations such as WikiProject Women in Red have made significant strides in addressing the gender gap on Wikipedia by actively creating and improving articles on women's topics.
Similarly, partnerships between academia, cultural institutions, libraries, archives, and online encyclopedias can help ensure that women's contributions are adequately represented and recognized. Educational interventions are also essential in combating gender bias in online encyclopedias. Incorporating critical thinking and media literacy skills into school curricula can empower users to critically evaluate and challenge gender stereotypes present in digital platforms. By fostering a more inclusive and equitable understanding of history and knowledge, education plays a pivotal role in addressing the root causes of gender bias in online encyclopedias.
The underrepresentation of women in online encyclopedias like Wikipedia, Britannica, and multiple other resources underscores broader issues of gender inequality and systemic bias in knowledge production and dissemination. By perpetuating gender stereotypes and marginalizing women's contributions, these platforms not only distort historical narratives but also hinder progress towards gender equality. Addressing the gender gap in online encyclopedias requires a multifaceted approach involving community engagement, institutional collaboration, and educational reform. By actively working towards more inclusive and equitable representation, we can create online encyclopedias that reflect the diversity of human experience and contribute to a more just and informed society.