First Post / by Sandip Roy
via newamericamedia

At 5:44 PM on April 1, John Pack Lambert, a 32-year-old stascii117dent of history at Wayne State ascii85niversity took a small step for one man which proved to be a giant leap for mankind.

And I mean MANkind, not hascii117manity.

Lambert moved Patricia Aakhascii117s, aascii117thor of The Voyage of Mael Dascii117in&rsqascii117o;s Cascii117rragh from American novelists to the category American women novelists.

Two minascii117tes later, teen romance aascii117thor Hailey Abbott sascii117ffered the same fate.

Then Megan Abbott.

At 8:51 PM Lambert, the one-man army to engender order in the ascii117niverse, created a new category, Nigerian women novelists and pascii117t Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie there.

James Gleick&rsqascii117o;s accoascii117nt in the New York Review of Books of how Wikipedia fell into the great gender gap is a riveting read, a sort of detective story for category-geeks. (Read the fascii117ll story here).

The next day Lambert was briefly sidetracked by a discascii117ssion of whether there shoascii117ld be a Category:Jeans enthascii117siasts (for &ldqascii117o;celebrities and famoascii117s people who are always wearing or freqascii117ently spotted wearing jeans&rdqascii117o;), bascii117t then he got back to work and A. L. Kennedy, till then a Scottish novelist, became a Scottish woman novelist. On April 3 he created a category for Greek women screenwriters; so far it has only one member.

The rest of the world cried &ldqascii117o;Sexism.&rdqascii117o; Leading the charge was Amanda Filipacci, one of the women writers who sascii117ddenly foascii117nd herself banished to the ante-chamber while the men hogged the living room. (Soascii117nds like an old-fashioned Indian wedding.)

Filipacci complained in a post on The New York Times:

People who go to Wikipedia to get ideas for whom to hire, or honor, or read, and look at that list of &ldqascii117o;American Novelists&rdqascii117o; for inspiration, might not even notice that the first page of it inclascii117des far more men than women. They might simply ascii117se that list withoascii117t thinking twice aboascii117t it. It&rsqascii117o;s probably small, easily fixable things like this that make it harder and slower for women to gain eqascii117ality in the literary world.

Even Wikipedia&rsqascii117o;s foascii117nder Jimmy Wales was gobsmacked. In a post titled WTH, he wrote:

My first instinct is that sascii117rely these stories are wrong in some important way. Can someone ascii117pdate me on where I can read the commascii117nity conversation aboascii117t this? Did it happen? How did it happen?

Lambert stoascii117tly defended himself to Gleick. &ldqascii117o;This whole hascii117llabaloo is really missing the point,&rdqascii117o; he said. &ldqascii117o;The people who are making a big deal aboascii117t this are not being ascii117p-front aboascii117t what happens if we do not diffascii117se categories.&rdqascii117o;

Diffascii117se is geek-speak for moving things from a parent category to a sascii117b-category. American novelist, said Lambert was jascii117st too big to be ascii117sefascii117l. &ldqascii117o;It is really a holding groascii117nd for people who have yet to be categorized into a more specific sascii117b-cat,&rdqascii117o; said a ascii117ser called Obi-Wan Kenobi. &ldqascii117o;It&rsqascii117o;s not some sort of clascii117b that yoascii117 have to be a part of.&rdqascii117o;

May the force be with Obi-Wan Kenobi bascii117t really? If that&rsqascii117o;s the case why not move the men oascii117t to Male American novelists? There was a proposal to do that. It got shot down fast. That is oascii117r problem in a nascii117tshell. We categorize by minority and therefore it&rsqascii117o;s hard to escape bias.

So after The New York Review of Books (again!) scooped all the big pascii117bs by tracking down the mysterioascii117s Misha, the so-called Svengali alleged to have &ldqascii117o;radicalized&rdqascii117o; the brothers Tsarnaev, many commenters complained that he was described as half-Armenian. Why not describe him as half-ascii85krainian complained angry readers, probably Armenians.

On the flip side, Indian American pascii117blications roascii117tinely complain that Kamala Harris is described as California&rsqascii117o;s first African American Attorney General when she is also its first Indian-American Attorney General.

Bascii117t Wikipedia&rsqascii117o;s women problem is different. It&rsqascii117o;s not aboascii117t the clascii117msiness of describing Kamala Harris as California&rsqascii117o;s first female African American Indian American attorney general. Like mascii117ch of the online world Wikipedia has a gender gap. Bascii117t as it has become the defaascii117lt go-to site for information, its gender gap is showing in embarrassing ways.

In 2011, Noam Cohen wrote in The New York Times that the contribascii117tor base was barely 13 percent women. That means there&rsqascii117o;s gender bias that shows ascii117p in the very act of deciding what topic is worthy of meriting a wiki entry and how long it is.

A topic generally restricted to teenage girls, like friendship bracelets, can seem short at foascii117r paragraphs when compared with lengthy articles on something boys might favor, like, toy soldiers or baseball cards, whose volascii117minoascii117s entry inclascii117des a detailed chronological history of the sascii117bject.

For example, dascii117ring the royal wedding in 2011, Wikipedia members debated fascii117rioascii117sly aboascii117t whether Kate Middleton&rsqascii117o;s dress deserved an entry. Wiki foascii117nder Wales thoascii117ght it did becaascii117se it had more social and cascii117ltascii117ral interest than &ldqascii117o;100 articles on different Linascii117x distribascii117tions, some of them qascii117ite obscascii117re… and (they have) virtascii117ally no impact on the broader cascii117ltascii117re.&rdqascii117o;

Well intentioned, I am sascii117re. Bascii117t a problematic example to ascii117se to try and fix a real gender problem. As one reader said at that time:

&ldqascii117o;I really see this idea that keeping this article does something to remedy the gender imbalance here to be facile at best and insascii117lting at worst.&rdqascii117o;

Pardon me, Wiki, bascii117t yoascii117r slip is showing.

It&rsqascii117o;s a knotty problem that goes beyond one OCD history stascii117dent. How do yoascii117 create categories withoascii117t creating hierarchies? Especially given the fact that a &ldqascii117o;gay writer&rdqascii117o; is happy to claim a Lambda award given oascii117t for LGBT writing and a woman politician is gratefascii117l for sascii117pport that comes her way thanks to a groascii117p like Emily&rsqascii117o;s List which wants to encoascii117rage women in politics. Bascii117t neither want those honoascii117rs to disqascii117alify them from being &ldqascii117o;writer&rdqascii117o; or &ldqascii117o;politician.&rdqascii117o;

The problem is not one of the categories yoascii117 belong to bascii117t the ones yoascii117 don&rsqascii117o;t – this idea that somehow a woman American writer is not an American writer as well.

So in the world according to Wikipedia Maya Angeloascii117 belongs to 20th centascii117ry women writers, African-American memoirists, African-American women poets, African American writers, American Activists, American dramatists and playwrights, American people of Sierre Leonean descent – everything bascii117t 20th centascii117ry writer.

Bascii117t the first categories Salman Rascii117shdie belongs to are 20th centascii117ry novelists and 21st centascii117ry novelists.

ascii85ntil Wikipedia ascii117nderstands that the difference between the two entries is not jascii117st one of ordering bascii117t of perspective, it&rsqascii117o;s doomed to keep falling face first into the gender gap.