Leaving women out of history (or Wikipedia)

It's not new to say that women have been left out of history. We were often too busy holding the baby to go out and do any top-class conquering, so our fathers, husbands, sons and brothers got all the glory while we had to made do with bringing up the next generation of conquerors, or whatever.

It has been noticed that the very word 'history' is about men - it's 'his story' not her story.

Women are also being left out of Wikipedia. In December last year the world's largest encyclopedia reported that just 17% of its biographies were of women. It shows how important our half of the population is considered to be.

Part of the problem is simply that far fewer women than men have left traces in the history books. But Wikipedia isn't just about history - a lot of its biographies are of living people

A US Soldier is decorated for his service, accompanied by his wife.

Photo by Herald Post via Flickr Creative Commons. 

I'm going to massively over-simplify and say that there are two main reasons why women are underrepresented in Wikipedia

1. Women are underrepresented in the history books. History remembers the man who fought in battle, not the woman who stayed at home bringing up his children.
2. Most of the Wikipedia's editors are men (90% according to a 2011 survey), and we are naturally drawn towards writing about our own kind, men write about other men, and women get left out.

Wikipedia is massively influential. It can at times be inaccurate, and students are constantly told to be wary of its claims, and check their facts. But surely it must almost always be the first port of call of anyone trying to find out anything, from who discovered to DNA to how you make yoghurt.

Why are most of Wikipedia's editors men?

Anyone can edit Wikipedia - I have done. Sue Gardner - Journalist and former Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director - explained on her blog why women don't edit Wikipedia. Reasons include:

• They don't like the unfriendly interface
• They have less free time than men
• They lack confidence in their own knowledge
• They think it will bring them into situations of conflict which they don't like
• The information women add to Wikipedia is more likely to be edited or deleted
• They prefer volunteering on more social websites, with more opportunity for interaction

You can find a much better explanation of these, and the other reasons in Nine Reasons Why Women Don't Edit Wikipedia (in their own words).

The suggestion about lacking confidence is telling. It's a big deal to make a contribution to an encyclopedia. I mean, it's easy - anyone can make an edit in 30 seconds. But you have to be confident in your knowledge and believe that you are equipped to make a meaningful contribution, to tell the world something it doesn't already know. And my experience of women (myself included) is that we generally have less confidence in our abilities than men do. It's the 'if I know it, then probably everyone else does too' view.

What is the answer to the Wikipedia question?

Women aren't contributing to Wikipedia, and so they're not appearing in it. Wikipedia could make their interface more friendly (although the point of a wiki is that it's just nuts-and-bolts). Maybe they could try harder to make women feel welcome, actively recruit us, and show that they value our contribution. But they can't give women more free time, or self-confidence.

Sometimes there isn't an answer. But that doesn't mean we should stop asking the question.

Power Lists and Heroines

By NASA/Bill Ingalls via Wikimedia Commons

Last weekend BBC Radio 4 released a Woman's Hour Power List of the UK's most influential women.

The Queen topped the poll, followed by the Home Secretary Theresa May (fair enough - they're quite influential). Below them, the top 20 included women at the top of their fields in business, law, medicine, the media (a Murdoch), science, politics and the arts.

It is heartening to see that only a handful of these women are 'famous' in our usual celebrity-obsessed sense: Adele, JK Rowling, Joanna Lumley and Victoria Beckham (for her fashion work).

These lists are pretty abstract and subjective. How do you really measure influence, and are the list-makers trying too hard to cover as many different areas and professions as possible?

A truly feminist result would be a list of powerful people, in which half were men and half women, but we still have a long way to go before we get to that point. What is great about reading through this list is that these women are out there, being important and influential, and making history.

History's losers

There is a saying that history is always written by the winning side. Up until the 20th century history was written by and about men. When asked to name pre-19th century important men, you could probably keep going for hours. Do the same for women and you won't run out of fingers.

There were plenty of women around when big historical events were taking place, but women couldn't vote, they lost out on positions of power to their brothers, and their education rarely went beyond learning to sew and sing.

Historic Codpiece Influencer Anne Boleyn

That's not to say that women haven't had an impact on history. If it wasn't for Anne Boleyn (and her daughter Elizabeth I), the entire religious landscape of this country would have been different. But up until the 20th century when women fought for the right to vote, fought for the right to a decent education and fought for places in all of the professions reflected on the Power List, we didn't really have a chance.

Codpiece politics

What the Power List does suggest is that history in the future will no longer be male-dominated. There will be heroines who change history because of what they think, say and do - not just because some fat bloke in a codpiece and a crown fancies having his way with them.

Maybe we still haven't reached the point where half the world's movers and shakers are men and half are women, and maybe we never will. But in the UK, if not elsewhere, the landscape in business, law, medicine, the media, science, politics and the arts is being influenced and changed by both men and women. We're no longer the losers.